Titan 3 ICBM Questions? Costs as well...

[john_316]

Are there any Titan 3 missiles still laying around that can be refurbished?<br /><br />Didn't they leave 2-3 Titan 4's around in case of need? Not that i would see them used in this scenerio.<br /><br />I was wondering about the Titan 3 because of its use with Gemini. I was thinking about the T/Space Biconical CTV and thought about this.<br /><br />Why not launch the CTV (not CEV) on the Titan 3 or maybe the (so called cheaper) EELV.<br /><br />I was at the astronautix.com web sight and was looking at figures in the cost of these systems from when they were ICBM's and originally developed and as early space vehicle launchers. Its odd to imagine that in the span of 30+ years that a launcher would steadily increase in price is absolutely absurd. I don't think the Soyutz even comes to that prohibitive cost if you ask me and your not (LOL).<br /><br /><br /><i><br />Although 55 surplus ICBM's were available for use as space launchers, only the original 14 contracted in 1986-1987 were ever refurbished and launched, due to the inexplicably high cost of the minimal refurbishment.<br /><br />LEO Payload: 3,175 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.6 degrees. Payload: 2,177 kg. to a: 185 km polar orbit trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 2,090.00 kN. Total Mass: 154,000 kg. Core Diameter: 3.05 m. Total Length: 31.40 m. Launch Price $: 34.00 million. in 1994 price dollars. Total Number Built: 131. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 26.00 million. in 1987 unit dollars.<br /><br />Cost of design, development, launch complex development, and first 8 refurbished ICBM's in 1986 was $ 529 million. Next 6 cost $ 155 million = $ 26 million each. Refurbishment and launch of 14 surplus ICBM's in 1997 was $ 660 million = $ 47 million per launch.<br /></i><br /><br /><br />Ok now whats the cost for the EELV in its minimum configuration in 2005-2006 dollars?<br /><br />I figure the higher cost's are not in actual hardware but of hundreds of managers to oversee the less than hundreds workers on the floor building it. Kinda like this manager

 

[vogon13]

I have no special knowledge, and this is just speculation, but it seems the fuel and oxider used in the Titan is rather nasty stuff. Human factors in refurbishment might have something to do with that.<br /><br />(Everything in the plumbing of the rocket would have to be decontaminated for any repairs or refurbishment)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Ok now whats the cost for the EELV in its minimum configuration in 2005-2006 dollars? "<br /><br />At high production rates, the marginal cost of an Atlas 402 launch would probably be somewhere in the vicinity of $45-50m.

 

[john_316]

Just a little over the Titan-3 1997 estimates.<br /><br />Not bad then...............<br /><br />

 

[trailrider]

"Are there any Titan 3 missiles still laying around that can be refurbished?<br /><br />Didn't they leave 2-3 Titan 4's around in case of need? Not that i would see them used in this scenerio.<br /><br />I was wondering about the Titan 3 because of its use with Gemini. I was thinking about the T/Space Biconical CTV and thought about this."<br /><br />There were NO "Titan-3" ICBM's! The refurbished Titans were Titan 2's. These were refurbished for use as satellite launch vehicles carrying certain military payloads, primarily launched from Vandenberg AFB, California. I don't know if there are any of these left laying around, but I doubt it. Anyhow, the Titan production/refurb equipment has been decommissioned.<br /><br />The ELV's based on the Titan core DESIGN, using Titan 2 engines and tankage (suitably modified) with UTC Solid Rocket Motors (SRM's) were variously termed "Titan III, III-B, -C and Titan 34-D." The Titan IV used modified Aerojet engines (they had cleverly discarded the tooling for the Titan ELV lines when the Shuttle was expected to serve the military, and had to produce new engines. There wasn't significant differences between the older engines and the new ones, however). The Titan IV had longer tankage in both Stage 1 and 2 core. (The Titan ELV's lit the SRM's ONLY at launch (Stage 0) and fired the 1st stage at altitude.<br /><br />The Commercial Titan Launch Vehicle used SRM Stage 0 (2 each), a 34-D 1st Stage with Titan IV engines, and a Stage 2 that was the length of a Titan IV Stage 2, but with tank wall thickness half-way between a 34-D and a Titan IV Stage 2. (I know, because I designed the Stage 2 tankage.) Only four (4) CTLV's were ever built. Martin-Marietta management expected to charge $125M per launch. This was crazy because Arianne 4 was only charging $85M (1980's dollars), subsidized. Had M-M managment asked me, I'd have told them to forget the exercise. As it turned out, the first three were sold commercially and the fourth was bou