|
|
#1
February 14th 04, 04:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Titan 4s costly
Satellite rockets proved costlier than first billed
BY JOHN KELLY FLORIDA TODAY 04/02/14 CAPE CANAVERAL -- If things turned out as the U.S. Air Force predicted in the 1980s, the 20-story Titan 4 rocket blasting off from Cape Canaveral this week would cost taxpayers the bargain basement price of $100 million. Instead, the bill is more like a half-billion dollars, not including the satellite on top. It's a disappointing footnote in the glorious history of a brand of rockets which launched the Gemini astronauts from the Cape on missions that laid the groundwork for the moon landings and kept thousands of Brevardians employed for decades. The last three Titans are to launch from Florida and California during the next year or so. But the Titan 4 never quite delivered on a promise to offer the military a cheaper, reliable alternative to the shuttles for getting heavy military satellites to space. A single Titan ended up costing about as much as a shuttle mission anyway. And while 30 of 34 Titan 4s did their jobs flawlessly, the four that did not left billions of dollars of critical military satellites at the bottom of the ocean or in the wrong orbit -- basically space junk. Roger Guillemette, an independent military space analyst who recently wrote a history of the Titans, said his first reaction to the end of the Titan 4 is "good riddance." But he and others also recall the workhorse booster's mighty contribution to space exploration and national security. Awesome raw power The current model is a brute -- capable of lifting 50,000 pounds, or about 16 Volkswagen Beetles, to orbit. "The Titan has been been the premier provider of services for them, for the defense of our country," said Ben Dusenbery of Merritt Island, the local Titan manager for Lockheed Martin. Titans began as intercontinental ballistic missiles, topped with nuclear weapons. Then came Titan 2, used to boost critical Gemini missions in which NASA proved many techniques such as spacewalking and docking in orbit -- all of which needed to be mastered to get men to the moon. Later, Titans launched the twin Voyager flights to the outer reaches of the solar system and the Viking probes that landed on Mars. After the shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986, President Reagan decided to limit the use of the shuttles for that job, leaving Titan 4 as the only way to get those assets to space. The heavy military and intelligence satellites Titans launched changed the face of modern warfare. They improved communications, ship tracking and weather forecasting for U.S. troops and boosted the nation's ability to keep an eye on adversaries around the world. Beginning with the 1990 Gulf War, the military's reliance on space skyrocketed. Titan-boosted satellites gave the U.S. the ability to launch quick precise strikes in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan while risking few casualties in comparison to past conflicts. "The Titans have been very versatile and reliable vehicles for national defense and space exploration," Guillemette said. "They were just a little cranky. The Titan 4, on the other hand, requires a staff of personal trainers and therapists to coax it off the launch pad." Cranky and costly The Air Force and Lockheed got the Titan 4 from the drawing board in 1985 to space in 1989, a remarkably short schedule since similar programs often need a decade or so to develop. The Air Force believed Titans would launch monthly, for about $100 million each. Instead, demand for more military satellites plummeted. The Soviet Union fell apart. And the satellites already in orbit started living longer. "When the Cold War ended, the flight rate went south," said John Pike, an independent analyst with a Washington-based think tank that follows space and military policy worldwide. An army of workers is needed to build and ready the rockets no matter how often they fly. Making matters worse, most Titans had to be custom-matched to unique, secret spy satellites. "There is no such thing as a production line for the Titan 4," Guillemette said. "Every vehicle is custom built and custom-tweaked. Usually you build a satellite to go on the rocket. They're building a rocket to go under the satellite." The program has cost at least $30 billion, or well over a half-billion dollars for each rocket launched. That's close to what NASA says shuttle flights cost. "It made all the sense in the world when they thought they were going to fly it once a month," Pike said. "When it turned out they were only flying it twice a year, you just had this enormous infrastructure, this enormous number of people, all of whom were essential to flying the thing." Titan 4s were finicky too. One sat on the pad there for more than 1,000 days. A frustrated Air Force commander threatened to mount a plaque at the pad touting the $3.5 million-per-day bill to taxpayers for the idle rocket. Adding to the problem were a string of launch failures in the 1990s. Three late-90s failures cost taxpayers about $3 billion and Congress grew irritated. Criticism became so frequent that one general compared bad-mouthing the Titan to beating a "tethered goat." In the end, costs and technology led the Air Force to look to replacements. The military also wanted to stop using a toxic fuel that posed a danger to workers and nearby residents. In a written response to questions, the Air Force said, "The Titan program has been one of the Air Force's most successful." A Titan legacy Titan 4 is leaving a legacy. Its design, looking like three rockets strapped side-by-side, is mocked in the larger models of Boeing's new Delta 4 and Lockheed's Atlas 5. Titan lessons inspired faster, cheaper ways to ready the new rockets for flight. "These new birds that are going to have this heavy lift capability, they look a lot like the Titan," Dusenberry said. "There are a lot of improvements they've come up with and some very creative processing systems in terms of how to get the vehicles out to the pad, and that cut costs." One problem that plagued Titan is repeating itself. Guesses about the cost of the new rockets were based on optimistic assumptions about how much business they might generate. An expected boom in commercial satellites did not materialize. The per-launch price the military pays for rides on the Delta and Atlas is going up. That's a problem that plagues many long-term military and space projects. "The big management challenge is how do you adjust gracefully to inevitable program turbulence," Pike said. "All of these programs have the same problems. They last so long that unavoidably, the world will change." Contact Kelly at 242-3660 or 
|
|
#2
February 15th 04, 12:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
|
|
#4
February 16th 04, 04:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 14 Feb 2004 16:47:35 GMT, (AllanStern) wrote: After the shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986, President Reagan decided to limit the use of the shuttles for that job, leaving Titan 4 as the only way to get those assets to space. I don't think that's true. Reagan banned the Shuttle from *commercial* payloads (that didn't require Shuttle's unique capabilities), but not military missions. Dumping the Shuttle was the Air Force's own idiotic idea. You're right that it was the Pentagon's idea, but I won't agree with you on the "idiotic" part. DoD began developing a Titan 34D follow-on, initially named Titan 34D-7, well before the Challenger disaster. They did this because it had become apparent (to DoD at least) that shuttle was not meeting its goals. There were too many non-payload delays. And there was valid concern (accurate it turned out) about having all of the country's space eggs in one basket. All of this was in the midst of the Cold War. Titan IV was a good idea under the circumstances of the time. The end of the Cold War made it look like a less good idea a few years later. - Ed Kyle
|
|
#5
February 16th 04, 04:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
|
|
#6
February 16th 04, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
"Brian Thorn"
in the name of "assured access to space" well, yeah. They ARE the military. and promptly abandoned that capability by bailing out of Shuttle Uh well the Shuttle is not operational at the moment. 3 1/2 $million a day for launch delay......I am in the wrong business.
|
|
#7
February 16th 04, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 04:34:01 -0600, "Kent Betts"
wrote: and promptly abandoned that capability by bailing out of Shuttle Uh well the Shuttle is not operational at the moment. But Titan IV is. And Shuttle was while Titan IV was having its troubles in 1993-94 and 1998-99. What's your point? Brian
|
|
#8
February 16th 04, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..
On 15 Feb 2004 20:06:35 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote: You're right that it was the Pentagon's idea, but I won't agree with you on the "idiotic" part. DoD began developing a Titan 34D follow-on, initially named Titan 34D-7, well before the Challenger disaster. You misunderstand me. My complaint is not that DoD developed Titan 34D/Titan IV, its that they did so in the name of "assured access to space" and promptly abandoned that capability by bailing out of Shuttle as soon as Titan IV was a going concern. Sorry about that. I have to agree with you, given that NASA was originally forced to enlarge shuttle for DoD, not NASA, payloads. In the long run, this would seem an argument to keep NASA and DoD space launches on separate vehicles. But it seems we are now going to see NASA adapting the EELV launchers that were developed to haul DoD payloads - which will probably lead to more unsatisfactory compromises. Didn't NASA have its greatest success in manned spaceflight when it developed its own (Saturn) launchers? - Ed Kyle
|
|
#9
February 16th 04, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
|
|
#10
February 17th 04, 05:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Titan 4s costly
jeff findley wrote in message ...
(ed kyle) writes: But it seems we are now going to see NASA adapting the EELV launchers that were developed to haul DoD payloads - which will probably lead to more unsatisfactory compromises. How so? NASA and DoD will have much different launch site and launch data requirements. NASA may need to make launch vehicle mods to improve reliability. You can bet that a NASA launch will hog launch pads much longer than a DoD unmanned launch. If a DoD launch fails, NASA launches will be affected while an investigation proceeds, and vice-versa. Unlinking NASA and DoD requirements entirely, by having one EELV serve NASA while the other did DoD work, would simplify the situation. Didn't NASA have its greatest success in manned spaceflight when it developed its own (Saturn) launchers? If you define success as building NASA specific launch vehicles that served no purpose beyond NASA missions. They could have, but never did because they were too big (Saturn V) and too costly (Saturn IB and Saturn V). Saturn IB could have been a NASA workhorse if some forsight had been applied. A Saturn IB/Apollo launch, inflation-adjusted, cost about the same, and probably even a bit less, than a current shuttle launch. Sat IB (with an upper stage) could also have been used to launch Voyager/Viking type missions and could have supported space station construction, etc. The EELVs, and the other big GTO launchers in the world today, are all Saturn IB-class. - Ed Kyle
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| *Saturday's* Titan IV | LooseChanj | Space Science Misc | 1 | February 20th 04 04:14 AM |
| Titan 4 launch prep comms begin at Canaveral | AllanStern | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 14th 04 04:46 PM |
| Jonathan's Space Report No. 509, 18-09-2003 | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 4 | September 23rd 03 08:27 AM |
| "Old, unsafe and costly" - The Economist on the shuttle | stmx3 | Space Shuttle | 11 | September 8th 03 02:39 PM |
| The Economist cover story: Scuttle the Shuttle- Old, Unsafe and Costly. | ElleninLosAngeles | Space Shuttle | 3 | September 3rd 03 11:01 AM |
Linear Mode
