Conference 7.286::space

    There hasn't been a Saturn flown in years, not since Skylab I think.
    Even if there are a couple in mothballs, it might take a long time
    and a lot of money to make one ready for launch, including training
    ground personnel and perhaps (re-)building ground facilities.
        John Sauter

    The Saturn V did not have that great a launch record. If I remember
    correctly, Apollo 6 the second Saturn V to fly had numerous problems
    in the first and third stages. A mission goal was to test the command
    module at lunar reentry speeds. The only way they could come close
    to this was to use the service module engine in an unplanned manoeuvre.
    
    The failures probably would have been sufficient to abort a manned
    launch which makes you wonder a little about Apollo 8 (which was
    the next flight of a Saturn V).
    
    There is no flightworthy Saturn hardware in existance. The remaining
    vehicles were used at various museums.
    
    Titan, on the other hand was recently in production. There are also
    53 Titan IIs in silos that could be converted to launch vehicles
    if need be. Gemini 2 was launched on a reprogrammed ICBM rather
    than a Titan specifically built for space work.
    
    gary

    In our infinite wisdom, we no longer have the capability to make either
    the Saturn 1B or V. We have dismantled their launch support systems, or
    modified them for shuttle use. last time I went thru KSC, they were
    getting ready to dismantle the Saturn launch control complex
    (blockhouse). We couldn't get one of these off the ground if we had one
    to launch. 
    
    Besides, the Saturn is actually too big for any of these tasks. The S-V
    put into low earth orbit its entire third stage, plus the Apollo
    command, service, and lunar modules. Other than for building a space
    station, or sending off a manned interplanetary mission, we have no
    current need for that kind of lift capability. Even the S-IB is
    overkill for LEO, GEO, or even interplanetary launches. 

    Lift capability of the Titan 34D is 27,500lb (12,470kg) to 100 mile
    earth orbit, 4,200lb (1,905kg) to geosynch orbit.
    
    The liquid fuel engines in stages 1 and 2 (counting the solids as
    stage 0) are slightly more powerful variants of the engines used
    in the Titan II, so launch vehicles based on those ICBMs would probably
    have slightly lower performance. The upper stages are the IUS developed
    for shuttle use.
    
    Its lift capability is less than that of the Titan IIIE-Centaur
    used to launch Viking, voyager, etc.
    
    gary

I was working for Martin Marietta when they got the contract for the Titan
34D.  It was billed as "the last of the expendable launchers" -- a stop-gap
interim launcher required by the delays in the Space Shuttle program.  So
it would seem appropriate for it also to be used to fill another gap in
the Space Shuttle program.

How big a problem is it that some payloads are not designed for rocket-top
launches?

Can the 34D use the Centaur stage?  It would seem advisable to avoid Centaurs
as Shuttle cargo if at all possible.

Bob

P.S.  When I was at Martin Marietta, one thing I worked on was computer
graphic simulations of docking the Teleoperator Retrieval System with Skylab.
Another victim of Shuttle delays!

    My recollection of Apollo 6 (was that really the 2nd S-V launch
    or the 1st?) is that its main problem was what is called "Pogo
    Oscillation".  This is longitudal oscillation caused by acceleration
    somehow depriving the engine somewhat of fuel, thus lowering the
    acceleration and thus increasing the fuel flow, etc.  A nice case
    of negative feedback, which unfortunately had a relatively low
    frequency which matched the resonant frequency of something in the
    fuel system.  In any case, it caused a fuel feed line to break in
    one of the first two stages.  They just burned the third stage longer
    to make up for it.  I think they felt that they had identified the
    problem so clearly that they were confident enough of success to
    launch Apollo 8.
    
    Burns
    

        So, if recollection serves, the Titan 34D is not big enough
        to launch a TDRS, the Hubbel telescope, or the Jupiter exploration
        mission.
        
        The article I read had NASA buying new 34Ds - does the
        manufacturing capability still exist for these vehicles? How
        about launch support facilities?
        
        If we need heavy lift for the Space station modules and these
        other payloads, and IF we decide that we should use expendables
        when feasible, maybe we ought to get the Saturn out of
        mothballs... at least the Saturn 1 anyway.
        

        Dave

    Given that the Centaur has already been flown with Titan hardware
    it should not be a major engineering effort to build a Titan
    34D/Centuar D-1T vehicle. The engines in the Titan core are marginally
    different from those used in the Titan 3E but most everything else
    appears the same.
    
    Launch support facilities for Titan 3's are still operational at
    the Cape and at Vandenburg.
    
    'Getting the Saturn out of mothballs' would probably take more effort
    than building a new vehicle using, say, the SRBs. Especially the Saturn
    1 (and I think the 1B)- the first stage structure was built out of
    surplus Jupiter and Redstone tanks. Probably aren't too many of
    those still around.
    
    gary 

Why not a new design rather than re-tool for a 20-year old design?

("Something based on the reliable STS SRB motors" was the traditional next
line -- is it still the choice?)

Bob

    I've recently seen a number of designs for unmanned launch vehicles
    using only modified components of the STS in "Space World", the
    publication of the National Space Society. One striking one was
    two pods of three SSMEs and two SRBs clustered around an extended
    fuel tank with a cylindrical payload bay on the fore end.
    
    Never thought to compare how well this configuration would do in
    comparison to a Saturn 1B- anyone care to check the figures?
    
    John O.

    An article in themost recent AW&ST (in the ZK library at least)
    discusses a NASA/USAF bid for lump sum funding for a new orbiter
    and extra expendable launchers. It talks about a Titan 34D-7, whatever
    that designates. Anyone know what the difference between a 34D and
    a 34D-7 is? It also mentions a program to refurbish Titan II ICBMs
    to launch vehicle status.
    
    Some consideration is being given to launching Galileo on a
    Titan/Centaur combination, so it apparently has sufficient lifting
    ability.
    
    gary

    To answer my own posting, I looked up the article on "shuttle-derived
    vehicles" (Launchers made of shuttle parts, SDV's). Martin Marietta
    has come up with three different ones, each using the SRB's and
    the SSME's.
    
    The smallest of them uses 2 SRBs and 2 SSMEs mounted in one pod,
    and would put 140,000 pounds in low earth orbit. The shuttle is
    capable of about 65,000 pounds, I believe. The difference is that
    this unmanned vehicle has no flyback capability, although the various
    modules would be recoverable.
    
    The mid-size version uses 2 SRBs and 4 SSMEs and would lift 200,000
    pounds to LEO. The large(!) version has 2 SRBs and 6 SSMEs, 3 in
    each of two pods, arranged like the shuttle's back end. This config
    would put 290,000 pounds in LEO.
    
    The liftoff thrust of a Saturn V is just over 7,000,000 pounds.
    The heaviest load ever lifted was Skylab, and I think Skylab weighed
    about 20 tons. The SRBs get about 2.3 million pounds, and the
    SSMEs get 1 million each(?).
    
    Anyway, it seems to me that this, and not refurbing one of the old
    Saturn dinosaurs, is the way to go. (There are 3 Saturn Vs left,
    all on public display) The shuttle components required (SSMEs, SRBs,
    "external" tanks, avionics, plumbing, sheet metal) are all in
    production or easily modified. The lift capability is truly astonishing
    and the development is relatively cheap, I would think, compared
    to a new (or very old) configuration using older technology. Also,
    this would use the research done for the shuttle, instead of having
    to re-engineer and re-qualify engines and configurations. It would
    also allow economies-of-volume in production of shuttle/unmanned
    vehicle components, and provide a wider variety of launch configs.
    
    The MM study was done long before the loss of the Challenger, and 
    represents a reasonable attempt to continue and expand the launch
    capability, and not a step backwards. The shuttle is just a first
    step, and will be obsolete in a very few years.
    
    John O.
    

    Interesting:  According to the figures you gave, the SV has 7Mlb
    thrust and can orbit 400Klbs.  The BIG SDV would have something
    like 10.6Mlb thrust and would orbit less mass.  I suppose this is
    because the SV drops a lot more mass along the way in the form of
    the first and second stage, while the SDV would only drop the SRBs.
    
    Burns
    

    Actually, as I think of it, when Skylab was lifted, only the first
    two stages were used, since the third stage was Skylab itself. 
    Are you sure Skylab was heavier than the combination of Apollo CSM,
    LEM, and the Saturn third stage still partially full of propellent?
    
    Burns
    

    I'm not perfectly sure Skylab was 20 tons, which is 40, not 400,
    thousand pounds. It seems a little low to me- the space shuttle
    can lift 25000 pounds more, and the largest of the SDVs can lift
    more than three times as much. That's why I think I am wrong about
    the Skylab weight- I will have to check. I am  a little incredulous
    that the shuttle can carry that much more than the Saturn V,
    despite the more advanced technology. On the other hand, that may
    not have been the maximum the Saturn V could lift in weight, just
    that Skylab was two bulky to put on a Saturn 1B. As I say, I have
    to check....
    
    I can think of two reasons that the SDV might be much more efficient
    than the Saturn V: the SSMEs are more efficient, get a much higher
    specific impulse out of LH2/LO2, therefore are lugging less fuel
    at liftoff, and they can burn almost all the way to orbit, with
    the heaviest part of the lift carried by the discarded SRBs in the
    first couple minutes of flight.
     

    The first stage of the Saturn V (S-1C) burned LOX/RP-1. Rp-1 is
    a refined kerosene and is nowhere near as efficient as LOX/LH2.
    That may account for some of the difference in lifting ability.
    
    Skylab weighed 90,265kg. The payload shroud added another 11,795kg.
    
    gary

    Thanks, Gary.
    
    I can't find the stage weights for either the Apollo or Skylab.
    The liftoff weights were 6,423,000 for Apollo and 6,222,000 for
    Skylab. Which Apollo, I don't know. So, assuming the first and
    second stages were fully fueled on both launches, then the Apollo
    third stage was considerably heavier than Skylab, although the
    Apollo vehicles were lighter (I have Skylab at 168,100 pounds, and
    Apollo 17 at 112,608 with the escape tower). The Skylab Saturn 
    had slightly higher thrust on the first stage, 7,723,726 pounds
    as opposed to 7,650,000.
    
    Anyway, it looks like the Saturn V could put between 150 and 200
    tons in LEO, 400,000 pounds, which the largest of the SDVs can't
    match. The SSMEs develop 1,410,000 pounds thrust for THREE of them,
    and the SRBs 2,650,000. That would mean the large SDV would have
    about 8,120,000 pounds thrust, which does leave the question of
    where all the efficiency goes. My guess is that the "staging" of
    an SDV, leaving the SSMEs on their own, is a lot lower than the
    staging of the Saturn V.
    
    John O.

It certainly makes sense that an Apollo third stage was heavier than an Apollo
third stage, since the Apollo third stage was full of fuel, while the Skylab
one was full of mostly air.  In addition, the Apollo SV could lift it, because
it did have a powered third stage.  The third stage fired twice:  once on the
way to orbit, and once for lunar orbit injection.

It makes sense to me that the S-V would gain a lot of efficiency
by dropping more on the way up.  The lunar S-V stages twice before reaching
orbit.  The SDV described in this note drops only the SRBs, meaning that
the entire weight of the main engine tank for the entire trip is carried
all the way (or nearly so).

And finally, an interesting tidbit:  The reason that RP-1/Lox engines were
chosen for the Saturn first stage is that while LH/LOX engines have higher
specific impulse, LH is not very dense.  Thus even though it is lighter than
the equivalent energy's worth of RP-1, it takes up a LOT more room, thus
adding structural weight and drag.

Burns

    Here are some additional stats:
    
    Saturn V Launch Vehicle:
    	- Weight:
    		> Fueled: 6,200,000 lbs
    		> Empty:    400,000 lbs
    
      S-IC First Stage:
    	- Weight:
    		> Fueled: 4,872,102 lbs
    		> Empty:    286,600 lbs
    
      S-II Second Stage:
    	- Weight:
    		> Fueled: 1,071,453 lbs
    		> Empty:     78,750 lbs
    
      S-IVB Third Stage:
    	- Weight:
    		> Fueled:   263,075 lbs
    		> Empty:     24,900 lbs
    
      Intrument Unit:
    	- Weight:             4,492 lbs
    
      Command Module:
    	- Weight:            12,850 lbs (Approx)
    
      Service Module:
    	- Weight:            54,074 lbs (Approx)
    
      Lunar Module:
    	- Weight:            36,289 lbs (Approx)
    
      Launch Escape System:
    	- Weight:             9,173 lbs
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    SKYLAB:
    
      Orbital Workshop:
    	- Weight:            78,000 lbs
    
      Airlock Module:
    	- Weight:            49,000 lbs
    
      Multiple Docking Adapter
    	- Weight:            13,800 lbs
    
      Apollo Telescope Mount:
    	- Weight:            24,650 lbs
    
      Payload Shroud:
    	- Weight:            26,000 lbs
    ____________________________________________________________________
    SATURN 1B
      First Stage:
    	- Weight:
    		> Fueled:   997,127 lbs
    		> Empty:     84,521 lbs
    
    ___________________________________________________________________
    
    Hope this helps for those of you who were curious.
    jim
    
    	

    re .11 (answering my own questions.. I'll be talking to myself next)
    
    Based on data in the recent Forecast and Inventory issue of AW&ST,
    the 34D7 series use 7 segment solid strapons as compared to the
    5 segment strapons used in Titan III and 34D vehicles. The first
    stage is longer (more propellent capacity as well as providing anchor
    points for the strapons) and the thrustof the first and second stages
    is slight greater than on the 34D. The payload weights that AW&ST
    list vary widely and seem to represent different orbits.
    
    The list of currently active launcers of the Titan family is:
    
    Titan 34D Transtage
    Titan 34D	(usually flies recon sats that include an Agena stage
    	in their 'airframe')
    Titan 2 SLV	(modified from the ICBMs)
    Titan 34D7 Centaur G Prime
    Titan 34D7 IUS
    
    re .various
    
    Do not equate lift off thrust with payload capacity. The total impulse
    (thrust multiplied by thrust duration), mass ratio (initial mass
    of a stage divied by the final (burnout) mass of the stage - upper
    stages and payload included in both figures) and flight profile
    (staging times, amount of time spent in the lower atmosphere, etc)
    are generally more important than thrust alone, within reasonable
    limits.
    
    gary

        Which one of these Titans exploded at Vandenburg the other
        day?
        
        dp

    News reports have said that it was a Titan 34D which is consistant
    with the suggestion that the payload was a KH-11. The TV news seems
    to insist that it was a Titan missile (voice over a shot of a Titan
    II lifting from a silo), which is pretty close for TV news coverage.
    
    I hope this week's AW&ST will have some more detail, and maybe some
    photos. There has been no mention of launch pad damage but if the
    reports are correct in saying that it blew just after liftoff it
    may have made a mess of the launch complex (SLC-4E?).
    
    gary

    AvWeek says it was a Titan 34D, but that it was carrying a Big Bird
    rather than a KH11.  The Big Bird is a film-return satellite, while
    the KH11 sends back digitized pictures via radio.
    
    Also, not only the pad from which it was launched, but the adjacent
    Titan pad were damaged, the launch pad fairly severely (5 months
    was the TTR, I think).
    
    BTW, AvWeek reports that it is quite certain that the Titan explosion
    began with one of the solids (reasonable, since they are the only
    things going for a minute or 2).
    
    Burns
    

     There has been a lot of talk lately about reactivating the Saturn
    1-B which was made out of Jupiter parts and the Saturn 1-C which
    uses F1s. Does anyone remember if there was a Saturn 1-A? What
    was it and did it ever fly?
    
      George

	re .24:
     Hang on...Saturn 1C?  It is the Saturn V that used F1 engines. 
    (The Saturn 1B's main engines were called H1 by the way).
    
    I don't know about the Saturn 1 (or 1A), but I have some vague memory
    that it existed on paper.
    
    Burns

    WHATEVER the engines were called, Hughes (?) recently got permission
    to remove the spare Saturn V engines from controlled environment
    storage so they could make repairs and use them on a new booster.
    

Re .25:

No, I think that Saturn V is the name of a particular assembly of three
stages.  The individual stages were called S-I C, S-II and S-IV B (I
probably remember this from reading Marooned).

How much thrust could an H1 engine develop?  (I assume it ran on kerosene
and LOX).
				/AHM

    The Saturns that flew were
    
    Saturn I 
    
    aka Saturn C-1, used Jupiter and Redstone parts for the first stage
    (S-I, powered by 8 H-1 engines burning LOX/RP-1), S-IV second stage
    used 6 RL10A LOX/LH2 engines, derived from Centaur. A third stage, the
    S-V was planned using two RL10A's 
    
    Saturn IB
    
    aka Uprated Saturn I (or C-1). First stage (the S-IB) is an uprated
    version of the Saturn 1 first stage.  The second stage was the S-IVB
    with a single J-2 engine (LOX/LH2)
    
    Saturn V
    
    Aka Saturn C-5. First stage is the S-1C with five F-1s buring LOX/RP-1
    (kerosene). Second is the S-II using 5 J-2s and the third stage
    is the S-IVB as used in the Saturn IB.
    
    The IB and V were the only vehicles to carry manned spacecraft in
    the series. Several other vehicles were porposed in the Saturn C
    series (the C group were proposals based on the use of LH2. I don't
    know what the A and B series proposals were)
    
    The engines that the Hughes MLV is based on are the F-1 and J-2.
    Several of each have been in environmentally controlled storage
    from the Apollo days which they would use for the initial vehicles
    while Rocketdyne gear up to build more.
    
    Someone asked what the thrust levels for the engines are...
    	H-1	205,000lb (Isp 155)
    	F-1	1,522,000lb (Isp 165)
    	J-2	230,000lb (Isp 500)
    The figures are for the improved versions of the engine in each
    case.
    
    gary

      I hope you won't mind a few questions but I have wondered about
    some of these things for years.

    I know what the Saturn IB was used for but what did the Saturn I launch?

    Was there any difference between the Jupiter and Redstone?

    Did they each use 1 H-1?

    Who made them?

      There have been rumors that someone wants to bring back the S1-B.
    If that were possible, would the Jupiter be a possible alternative
    for launching small payloads?

      This is probably a real stupid question. The Saturn V had 5 F-1s
    on the 1st stage and and 5 J-2s on the 2nd stage. I noticed that
    plans for the Jarvis show 2 F-1s for the 1st stage and only 1
    J-2 for the 2nd stage.

      From looking at the numbers in .28, the ratio in pounds going from
    1st to second stage for both Saturns was about 7:1. The Jarvis would
    be 14:1. What criteria is used to determine this ratio?

      George

    P.S. I'll try not to ask about the Vanguard.

    Thanks to Gary for clearing some of this confusion up.  My apologies
    for contributing to it.
    
    BTW, there are two things going on, if that was not clear.  First,
    Hughes really is working on the Jarvis vehicle based on F-1 engines.
    The second thing is that Aviation Week reported that Lee Iacocca
    is being pressured (it did not say by whom) to ressurect the Saturn
    I-B (which was apparently built by Chrysler).  This was in one of
    their rumor columns, and I have not seen anything further on it.
    The Jarvis thing is further along.
    
    Burns
    

    Oh goody, ancient rocket history....
    
    re .29
    
    Redstone and Jupiter were were an MRBM and IRBM developed by Von
    Braun at Redstone arsenal for the army. They did not use H-1s, rather
    the H-1 was developed from their engine technology. The two vehicles
    were the basis of the Juno space launch vehicles, with Juno 1 being
    used for the US' first successful satellite launch. At one stage
    the Saturn was called the Juno V. Juno is another name for Jupiter
    and Saturn is the next planet out, hence the name.
    
    The original Saturn  was the S-I stage, first stage of the Saturn
    I. It was built out of Jupiter and Redstone tanks which lead to
    the interesting shape that it had. I seriously doubt Chrysler could
    resurrect it unless they were still geared to build Redstones and
    Jupiters. It also would not make much sense, since its design was
    based on how far the technology of 1960 could be pushed.
    
    The proposed Hughes MLV is not a Saturn or a derivative of any Saturn
    design. It happens to use the propulsion technology developed for
    Saturn, but thats it.
    
    The Saturn I was used to verify various pieces of Saturn and Apollo
    hardware. There were two variants, block 1 and block 2. The block
    1s were the first stage only. They did things like fill the upper
    tanks with water 'to simulate propellant sloshing and investigate
    the effects of dumping several tons of water in the upper atmosphere'.
    This always looked more like 'Think it will fly? Dunno. Lets launch
    it and find out' to me. This was Project Highwater, BTW. Later Saturns
    carried the Pegasus micrometeroid satellites and of course more
    useful payloads like a few tons of sand (investigating the effects
    of a few tons of sand in the upper atmosphere).
    
    Block 2 Saturn Is flew with a live second stage and usually with
    early Apollo hardware. The first block 2 flight has the old conical
    nose cone and is best looking rockets flown by the US. The block
    2s also have tail fins. The second block 2 was used for high altitude
    abort tests of the Apollo launch escape system.
    
    As for ratios, the usual important ratio is the mass ratio, which
    the ratio of liftoff mass to burnout mass (I think). With staged
    rockets the mass ratios get multiplied together to give an effective
    vehicle mass ration (which is why staging is efficient). The ration
    you mentioned ma be related to the mass ratios.
    
    gary

    Juno is not another name for Jupiter.  Juno is an asteroid.
        John Sauter

I just happen to be reading a NASA Historical Series publication called
"Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft" (NASA SP-4205,
1979).  It has an extensive discussion of the Saturn family tree, a
condensation of which I offer below as an addendum to Gary's typically
thorough discussion of the Saturn versions that were actually built and
flown. 

The Saturn C-2 would have been the ultimate H-1 powered version, with a new
second stage, the S-IV (six RL-10) stage from the Saturn 1, and an
undefined "S-V" fourth stage. The C-3 would have had two F-1s in the first
stage, a second stage with four J-2 cryogenic engines, and the S-IV as the
third stage. 

The new Hughes Jarvis would have fit between the Saturn C-2 and C-3.  

The C-4 would have had four F-1s in the first stage and used the C-3's
second stage.  The next documented version was the C-8, with 8 F-1s in the
first stage, eight J-2s in the second stage, and a single J-2 in the third
stage. 

The Nova was an extension of the Saturn family.  I've seen a number of
configurations described, but the one given in this NASA publication is:
Eight F-1s in the first stage, four M-1 cryogenic engines in the second
stages @1 million pounds of thrust each, and a single J-2 for the third
stage.  The M-1 was never developed. 

Just as a guess, the A and B Saturns may have been variants with fluorine
and/or nuclear upper stages.  The Air Force studied Nova class vehicles
with solid- and liquid-propellant first stages and fluorine and nuclear
upper stages to support its LUNEX (Lunar Expedition) program in the late
50s/early 60s. 

Many of the unbuilt Saturn configurations were proposed to support the
various modes and missions of the Apollo program as it progressed.  Apollo
was originally an Army/JPL program for an earth-orbital program, with the
potential for a manned earth-orbiting laboratory and circumlunar flight.
After the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (Huntsville, w/Von Braun) and the
JPL were transferred to NASA, a manned lunar landing was proposed, and the
Saturns were designed to support the various mission modes (direct flight,
earth orbital rendezvous, lunar orbit rendezvous, lunar crasher, lunar
surface rendezvous). 

PS. Maybe the Saturn 1B/Iacocca story was some Chrysler PR type's idea of 
corporate image building.

    re Jupiter/Juno
    
    I was talking names of Greek/Roman gods, not astronomical bodies.
    However, I still had it wrong. Juno was the sister and wife of Jupiter.
    The Juno I was derived from the Jupiter C and the Juno II from the
    Jupiter IRBM, hence the link.
    
    gary
    
    (The mythology is from 'Origins of NASA names')

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/05/89 (Forwarded)
Date: 5 Sep 89 20:05:50 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         NASA Headline News
Tuesday, Sept. 5, 1989                       Audio:  202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, September 5:
 
    An Air Force Titan 3 rocket early yesterday morning successfully
launched a secret military payload into orbit from the Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station launch facility.  It was the last launch by a Titan
3 rocket, which is being replaced by the more powerful Titan 4.  Titan
3 rockets deployed two Viking spacecraft toward Mars in 1976, and
launched the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecrafts in 1977. 
 
    For additional information read "Daily News in Brief" on 
NASAmail's "L" bulletin board.
 
    A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC) NASA, Hdqs.

    Re:.35
    	I thought that the Mars Observer was going to be launched by a
    Titan 34D/TOS in 1992 and that would be the last launch of a the Titan
    3 family of space launched. Unless the Air Force does not consider
    the Titan 34D to be a "Titan 3" and this launch actually involved a
    Titan 3C.
    
    				Drew
    

re .36

You are technically correct, however statement about the 'last Titan 34D' is
also correct.

Martin are selling their Commercial Titan, renamed Titan 3 recently. I
get the impression that some marketroid has told the US ELV industry that it
needs simple catchy names, hence Delta 2, Titan 3 etc, etc. Or perhaps the USAF
has a trademark on Titan 34D :-)

Commercial Titan is basically no different to the Titan 34D, other than the
change of name and the use of larger payload shrouds. Mars Observer will be
launched on a Titan 3/TOS.

The Titan 3C (and 3D) were functionally replaced by the 34D some years ago and
haven't been built or flown for some time. The 34D is an uprated version of
the 3C/3D and had the capability to fly with IUS upper stages, in addtion to
Transtage and Agena.

gary

(I wrote a lengthy article on the Titan series, that is posted in the rocketry
conference. I can cross post it here, or mail it to you if you are interested

    Re:.37
    	Thanks, I think that makes sense (at least as much sense as one can
    expect with the military somehow involved). I'd like to see the article
    on the Titan series. Personally, I have a pretty good understanding of
    it already except for, obviously, this commercialization of the Titan.
    
    				Thanks,
    				 Drew