Jump to content

Talk:LGM-25C Titan II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deployment Numbers

[edit]

The deployment numbers cannot be correct. There were 54 silos at the 3 operational bases plus three training complexes with one missile each at Vandenberg temporarly on alert, so the maximum number of deployed missiles is 57 at any given time.Geomartin (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Though there were sometimes as many as two missiles on alert at Vandenberg but not for long. The valid number for most of the history of the Titan II was 54. Though even that was often lower due to a missile being swapped out for maintenance or for onsite maintenance. After the destruction of silo 374-7 the number was permanently reduced. Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gov't Report

[edit]

The text on the www.fas.org about the Titan II missile is not copyrighted material. It comes from page 233 of the U.S. Government report:

"To Defend and Deter: Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program" - 1996

by John C. Lonnquest and David F. Winkler USACERL Special Report 97/01 A study sponsored by the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program Cold War Project 607 pages - illustrated

70.95-mb PDF format

The report is available at this URL.

http://www.cevp.com/docs/COLDWAR/1996-11-01952.pdf

Compare the Titan II section starting on page 233.

USAF Titan II Fact Sheet

Rusty 03:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Titan II range

[edit]

Titan II, as deployed, had a range of 5,500 nautical miles, not 9,000 miles. At one time the thought to deploy the Titan I Mark IV RV and warhead generated one flight that failed at staging and this is likely the source of the 9,000 mile range. The deployed Titan II had the W-53 and Mark VI RV, as correctly stated in the article.

Sources:

<"WS 107C, Titan II Weapon System Final Report, January 1965," held at the History Office, Peterson AFB, Colorado Springs,classified SECRET. The information cited is not classified.>/ <"Detailed Design Specifications for Model SM-68B Missile, Including Addendum for XSM-68B," held at History Office, Peterson AFB, unclassified.> 206.128.65.121 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of fatal accident in Searcy Arkansas silo

[edit]

| Source--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do so. Ckruschke (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

One lump or two

[edit]

The LR-87 used in the first stage is a single engine with two nozzles. Andrewa (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct, the LR-87-5 was a single chamber engine, which was fitted as a pair on the Titan II first stage. That is in contrast to the LR-87-3 of the Titan I, which was a two chamber engine with shared turbo-pump comparable to the modern RD-180.Geomartin (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OHO! That would explain a lot. Sources? Andrewa (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found one that confirms this... http://www.astronautix.com/engines/lr875.htm Aerojet N2O4/Aerozine-50 rocket engine. 1096.8 kN. Out of Production. Isp=297s. Used on Titan 2 launch vehicle. Engines refurbished for space launcher versions from decommissioned missiles between 1974-1982. Configuration: twin fixed motors with individual turbo-pumped assemblies. Application: Titan 2 Stage 1. First Flown: 1962 ICBM. Sept. 1988 orbital. Dry Mass: 739 kg. Length: 3.13 m. Maximum Diameter: 1.14 m. Engine Cycle: Gas generator. Propellants: hypergolic nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine-50, delivered at 750 kg/sec. Mixture Ratio: 1.93:1. Thrust: 1913 kN sea level. Isp: 259 sec at sea level. Expansion Ratio: 8:1. Combustion Chamber Pressure: 53.3 atm. Burn Time: 158 sec. Thrust (sl): 956.500 kN (215,030 lbf). Thrust (sl): 97,534 kgf. Engine: 739 kg (1,629 lb). Chamber Pressure: 54.00 bar. Area Ratio: 8. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 151.34. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 1.93:1 Status: Out of Production. Height: 3.13 m (10.26 ft). Diameter: 1.14 m (3.74 ft). Thrust: 1,096.80 kN (246,570 lbf). Specific impulse: 297 s. Specific impulse sea level: 259 s. Burn time: 155 s.
Note however that the article on the engine currently [1] gives the weight of the two-nozzle LR-87-3 as 839 kg, while the weight of the LR-87-5 is given as 739 kg. As the LR-87-5 was lighter than the LR-87-3, the LR-87-5 figures are probably all for a pair of (single chamber) engines not a single engine... otherwise a pair of LS-87-5s would weigh 1478 kg, a lot heavier than the corresponding configuration using a single (two-chamber, assuming you're correct above) LR-87-3. Moreover that article lead states Though this powerful engine used two discrete combustion chambers, it is considered a single unit owing to both chambers using common turbomachinery, but then lists both the LR-87-3 and LR-87-5 as having Number of chambers: 1. And the lead to the section on the LR-57-5 reads A modified version for the Titan II used new propellants, nitrogen tetroxide and aerozine-50. The engine was generally lighter and simpler than its predecessor, partly due to the propellants being hypergolic (pyrophoric), which did not need an independent ignition system. So there is no mention of the introduction of separate turbopumps with the LR-87-5, which is the critical point in all of this.
So it's still a mess, with important omissions, contradictions and presumably, therefore inaccuracies (law of the excluded middle). But thanks for clarifying that... it's progress. Andrewa (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, getting difficult here. I was sure I red it in Stumpf's "Titan II - History of a cold war missile program", but the text about the engine is not very clear in this regard. So I guess I got the information from astronautix.com as well. However, Stumpf's book has a graph of the complete assembly showing two turbopump assemblies as well as two separate fuel and oxidiser lines each. I think on some pictures of the assembly avalable on the internet you can also see two exhausts stacks (on most, the angle is not good, there isn't a good closeup directly from behind. Anyway, I thought I go right to the source at Aerojet, but there aren't much details either. Then I went on to www.titan2icbm.org with that horrific mid90'2 webdesign, and they state The Stage I engine assembly was designated LR87-AJ-5. Figure 13 shows the major components of this engine assembly. The engine included two regeneratively cooled thrust chambers, two pump drive assemblies, and interconnecting lines and fittings, all supported by an engine frame. This website tells the same. So in conclusion, we have two thrust chambers and two pump assemblies mounted together on one frame, and the whole thing is called LR87-AJ5. Technically 2 separate engines, but assembled together in a way they are one. Now open to discussion if you call that 1 or 2. From my google search, the consensus on the web is 50:50.Geomartin (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does explain a lot. Am I right in guessing that single-nozzle applications of the LR-87-5 do not exist?
My suggestion is that we don't attempt to decide which is correct, but instead add a paragraph with good cited sources to the article on the engine itself saying (assuming that I'm interpretting what you say correctly) that some authorities regard the two-chamber assembly used on the Titan II, the GLV and so on as consisting of two engines, and some as a single engine. (And personally I think I can argue it both ways, but not without sliding into WP:OR in either case, so there's no point in trying to decide it anyway.)
We also need to clarify the specification tables associated with the LR-87-5 to say (assuming that I've got it right at last) that these figures are for a two-nozzle engine assembly. We can do this without needing to take any stand ourselves on how many engines this assembly represents. Or is that cheating? We don't want to be so clever with the wording that it becomes misleading, that defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia.
We then need to do something about the infoboxes in the missile articles, and specifically, the number of engines lines. Will the template perhaps accept something like one two-nozzle assembly instead of just a number, linking to a footnote saying some authorities... and the footnote linking in turn to the more detailed discussion in the article on the LR-87?
Just suggestions at this stage. Thanks for coming back so promptly. Andrewa (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd be happy with those changes. Let's call it 1 engine and explain in the text that LR87-AJ5 is an assembly consisting of two chambers with a turbopump each. That's what happens when 1950's engine designers don't take Wikipedia infoboxes into account. I think there should be a rule for engineers that their developments should be Wikipedia-conform. Probably an update of the LR87 article would be worth as well. From my memory it is the only engine family ever using all major fuel combinations: LOX/RP1, hypergolic, LOX/H2 and even LH2/F2. Would probably be worth to work on that thing a little. --Geomartin (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent two years working in software configuration management I feel for those who have to design and conform to spaceflight QA, let us not make it any more difficult for them. Then again, perhaps putting the doco through a Wikipedia consensus process would be an effective and efficient control... (;-> I'm half serious...
I'd still like to avoid taking a stand on whether it's one engine or two. Maybe it's not possible to sidestep the confusion in this way, but I'd like to have a go at it.
This is definitely one of the more significant, successful and interesting engine families, for many reasons. The success of Apollo impressed both the Soviet public and the workers at all levels in their aerospace industry, but they had little say in ending the cold war. The near-perfect record of the Titan II GLV was far, far scarier to those in authority in the then USSR, even if it lacked the propaganda potential. (And there was no Gemini 13!) But I'm not sure whether anyone else has published similar thoughts, and of course my WP:OR does not belong in the article. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


An interesting discussion. It never occurred to me to consider it a single engine. We always referred to them as "engines". To be precise (and having worked on them in the USAF, I know)...two thrust chambers and four turbo pumps (two per thrust chamber). That of course suggests that they are two engines, but they did share peripheral support systems. The hot gas generator (for pressurizing the propellant tanks) the lubrication system and the drive unit (a small reaction chamber where a negligible amount of propellant was reacted to drive the turbopumps for the thrust chambers) were critical parts of the engines. In that respect it is proper to say that since the thrust chambers could not operate independently, they must, therefore be considered a single unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.176.163 (talk) 04:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... then you claim that all versions of the LR-87 should be considered as a single two-nozzle, two-chamber engine, in the same way that the RD-180 is considered a single engine? I will contact Geomartin and see whether they would like to reconsider the opinion above that the LR-87-5 was a single chamber engine, which was fitted as a pair, while the LR-87-3 was a two chamber engine (my paraphrase). Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm.... unfortunately, they have been inactive since July 2013, their last contribution here. [2] And the IP who contributed above has no other contributions. [3] And meanwhile, the articles continue to contain contradictory information.
At the risk of WP:OR, I think perhaps the time has come to fix this. Andrewa (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to restart the discussion at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles, which is probably a better place for it. Andrewa (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone not go to reliable sources? The USAF technical manual T.O._21M-LGM25C-1 clearly states that the LR-87 is one engine which "consists of two independent subassemblies mounted on a single engine frame. Each subassembly contains a thrust chamber assembly, a turbopump assembly, a gas generator, and an engine start system." George Sutton in his encyclopedic work "History of Liquid Prpellant Rocket Engines," American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, ISBN1-56347-649-5 describes the LR87 as a "dual booster engine." with "two thrust cambers." Much of the commentary above is based upon less than reliable sources." Perhaps the most amusing entry states I think there should be a rule for engineers that their developments should be Wikipedia-conform." Most droll and it hits upon a point of contention that Wikipedia itself is not necessarily reality compliant. As for "sources" that is a problem particularly in this internet age. I refer to two sources both serious in nature, one the USAF "owners manual" for the entire Titan II weapons system and the other a highly respected history of Liquid propellant Rocket Engines by an imminently qualified expert published by a respectable organization. I notice in the article much information is derived from sources like techbastard. The information might be good but consider the source.

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)[reply]

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) 08:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing

[edit]

From the article, existing missiles were destroyed; new Titans were built to launch satellites. Not entirely so. I worked at Lockheed Martin in Colorado, and refurbing Titans out of silos for launch vehicles was a big deal, we did quite a few of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly person (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Sites

[edit]

Just take note since I have not seen it there is also a launch site that has not been destroyed. Simply decommisineed in Green Valley, Arizona. Also known as launch site 7 i believe although I might be mistaken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airforcealltheway66 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's site 571-7. It was turned into the Titan Missile Museum (run by the Pima Air & Space Museum) and is mentioned in the article. Sturmflut (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology used in section on Vandenberg N-7 Test

[edit]

The wording in the article states "warhead", and not "Reentry Vehicle". Was N-7 to be an end-to-end FULL systems test much as the previous year's Dominic-Frigate Bird, or was someone a bit overzealous in their wording? If N-7 actually contained a "warhead", it might be a good idea to add a citation. The use of SEALs or a UDT or UCT to recover the RV would have been appropriate, but the usage of the word "warhead" makes it sound like the missile was armed for a Frigate Bird like test, which given Navy's FULL systems test, might have been a plausible scenario, as the partial test ban wasn't even signed until August and wasn't effective until October. 174.207.5.46 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Item with request for citation

[edit]

The article contains a description of an incident at silo 395C where a request for citation is needed. I have consulted every book and file I have on the Titan II as well as online sources. I have not been able to turn up any information reliable or otherwise concerning the incident described at the location stated at the time given. The Air Force Space & Missile Museum states that 395C was active until 27 June 1976. Stumpf lists three Titan launches from 395C during 1975, One in January, another in early August and the third in December. All carried classified cargo. Moreover the article states "The Titan suffered severe structural failure with both the hypergolic fuel tank and the oxidizer tank leaking and accumulating in the bottom of the silo." Whom ever wrote that does not understand hypergolic propellants. Aerozine 50 and Nitrogen Tetroxide would not "accumulate" as stated. Rather they would react violently and the resultant destruction of the missile and silo would have been noticeable. Witness the effects at Damascus (374-7) where "severe structural failure" failure caused the fuel and oxidizer to mix in the bottom of the launch duct. It is difficult to conceive of both fuel and oxidizer arriving at the bottom of the launch duct of 395C and the silo being able to host another launch in little over a months time. I recommend the deletion of the paragraph, unless the author provides a reliable citation.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of Retirement section

[edit]

I did not attempt a cited correction of the relative megatonnage of the Minutemen and Titan IIs. It was obvious that the statement was wrong so I simply did some math. The MM had about 1500 megatons of warheads and the Titans around 475 so the Titan did not carry a majority or an overwhelmingly significant minority of megatonage of USAF ICBMs. At great expense they could flatten 50 some places but in most instances it was overkill by the mid-1980s. One MM III could level as large an area of urban Russia at significantly less expense. (Three W87s, remember the square law applies to area damaged.) So I merely adjusted the sentence to reflect reality. I also did not answer the request for a citation on the list of available missiles as I know of no such list though the information is probably recoverable through extensive research. There were always a number of spare missiles more than the number of silos available. If one went bad it was replaced and the defect repaired. Lets face facts. Would there have been any survivors to put in the rubble of nuked silos? Why? To put it bluntly without venturing into the dreaded ground of "original research," which I tread close to at times, I could not find a reliable source with a reliable number. To which I add "so what?" I left the data and the request as perhaps there is someone who does have more reliable data.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engine failed to start

[edit]

While I was at McConnell AFB we sent a Titan II to Vandenburg for a launch. But the engines failed to start because the pre-valves for both the oxidizer and fuel did not open. So when the start cartridge was fired the turbo over-speeded and exploded.

What happened: 1) a train came across the launch path so the commander aborted 2) there were two relays involved in the operation of the pre-valves, one was a motor driven relay that operated the pre-valves and the other was a standard relay that sent a signal saying the pre-valves were open. 3) the motor driven relay was slower than the standard relay and the commander pressed abort after the standard relay closed but before the motor driven relay closed. 4) as a result there was no fuel nor oxidizer in the turbins.

Eddy@Quicksall.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:27A0:7780:300B:73F2:9998:7077 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. The consensus from the discussion below appears to be that there is a particular naming convention for U.S. weapons that maintains consistency. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


LGM-25C Titan II → Titan II – WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did the Titan II do hot staging

[edit]

Did the Titan II do hot staging ? The photos and other diagrams seem to show a vented interstage as if the 2nd stage ignites before separation. - Rod57 (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGM-25C_Titan_II&oldid=1216372882"