Will the real Titan II 1st stage stand up

In the past I have heard newsgroup posts about the Titan II first stage,
that it had a gross mass of 269,000 lbs and an empty mass of 9000 lbs,
which would give it a mass ratio of over 29! See a posting by Mitchell
Burnside Clapp at:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp/messages/M1168.HTML
halfway down the page.

But when I look at Encyclopedia Astronautica at
http://www.friends-partners.ru/partn...lvs/titan2.htm
I see the gross mass at 117,866 kg (260,000 lbs) and an empty mass of
6,736 kg (14850 lbs), giving a mass ratio of 17.5

So, which is the right value?

Thanks,

-- Larry

In the past I have heard newsgroup posts about the Titan II first stage,
that it had a gross mass of 269,000 lbs and an empty mass of 9000 lbs,
which would give it a mass ratio of over 29! See a posting by Mitchell
Burnside Clapp at:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp/messages/M1168.HTML
halfway down the page.

But when I look at Encyclopedia Astronautica at
http://www.friends-partners.ru/partn...lvs/titan2.htm
I see the gross mass at 117,866 kg (260,000 lbs) and an empty mass of
6,736 kg (14850 lbs), giving a mass ratio of 17.5

So, which is the right value?

Thanks,

-- Larry

It is much closer to Mitch's number than the other figure. I expect the
difference can be attributed to the mode of operation. The Titan II ICBM (and
Gemini-Titan) ran the first stage tanks dry (i.e., burn to propellant
depletion). The current SLV version (using the very same stage and engines)
doesn't. In fact, as I recall, the residuals at 1st stage shutdown are about
half again as much as the structural empty weight, nicely explaining the
difference you observe. Why does the USAF operate it that way? No one from
Aerospace Corp. has ever been able to give me a satisfactory answer. They just
do.

Gary C Hudson