Titan Final Stats

The last Titan 4B (B-26) flew today from Vandenberg AFB SLC 3E.
It was the 368th Titan launch since the first Titan 1 on
Feb 6, 1959. More than 500 Titans were manufactured all told.

Here is the final Titan record. This list includes failures
of all types, including many that did not involve the core
Titan stages themselves.

Vehicle Launches Realzd Years
(Failures) Rate
================================================
Titan 1 ICBM 67(23) .66 1959-1965
Titan 2 ICBM 81(16) .81 1962-1976
Titan 2 Gemini 12(0) 1.00 1964-1966
Titan 23G/(Star) 13(1) .92 1988-2003
Titan 3A 4(1) .75 1964-1965
Titan 3B Agena D 68(5) .93 1966-1987
Titan 3C 36(6) .83 1965-1982
Titan 3D 22(0) 1.00 1971-1982
Titan 3E Centaur 7(1) .86 1974-1977
Titan 34D TS/IUS 8(2) .75 1982-1989
Titan 34D 2.5 stg 7(1) .86 1983-1988
Titan 3 Commercial 4(1) .75 1990-1992
Titan 4A IUS 3(0) 1.00 1989-1994
Titan 4A 2.5 stg 10(1) .90 1990-1997
Titan 4A Centaur 9(1) .89 1994-1998
Titan 4B 2.5 stg 5(0) 1.00 1999-2005
Titan 4B IUS 5(1) .80 1997-2004
Titan 4B Centaur 7(1) .86 1997-2003
(ALL TITAN SPACE 219(22) .90)
(ALL TITAN 368(61) .83)
================================================

- Ed Kyle

On 19 Oct 2005 15:12:19 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

The last Titan 4B (B-26) flew today from Vandenberg AFB SLC 3E.
It was the 368th Titan launch since the first Titan 1 on
Feb 6, 1959. More than 500 Titans were manufactured all told.

Here is the final Titan record. This list includes failures
of all types, including many that did not involve the core
Titan stages themselves.

Vehicle Launches Realzd Years
(Failures) Rate
=============================================== =
Titan 1 ICBM 67(23) .66 1959-1965
Titan 2 ICBM 81(16) .81 1962-1976
Titan 2 Gemini 12(0) 1.00 1964-1966
Titan 23G/(Star) 13(1) .92 1988-2003
Titan 3A 4(1) .75 1964-1965
Titan 3B Agena D 68(5) .93 1966-1987
Titan 3C 36(6) .83 1965-1982
Titan 3D 22(0) 1.00 1971-1982
Titan 3E Centaur 7(1) .86 1974-1977
Titan 34D TS/IUS 8(2) .75 1982-1989
Titan 34D 2.5 stg 7(1) .86 1983-1988
Titan 3 Commercial 4(1) .75 1990-1992
Titan 4A IUS 3(0) 1.00 1989-1994
Titan 4A 2.5 stg 10(1) .90 1990-1997
Titan 4A Centaur 9(1) .89 1994-1998
Titan 4B 2.5 stg 5(0) 1.00 1999-2005
Titan 4B IUS 5(1) .80 1997-2004
Titan 4B Centaur 7(1) .86 1997-2003
(ALL TITAN SPACE 219(22) .90)
(ALL TITAN 368(61) .83)
=============================================== =

- Ed Kyle


Too bad the Titan never launched a Dyna-soar, operational MOL or a
manned lifing body.

-Rusty

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:15:39 -0700, Rusty
wrote:

Too bad the Titan never launched a Dyna-soar, operational MOL or a
manned lifing body.

....Too bad McNamara can't be forced to pay in pain for having been
responsible for those cancelled projects.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

Rusty wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 15:12:19 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Too bad the Titan never launched a Dyna-soar, operational MOL or a
manned lifing body.

Why? What good would have come out of either program? IMHO both
Dyna-Soar and MOL were primarily expressions of the Air Force's
irrational desire to have its own manned space program. Dyna-Soar
might have produced some worthwhile technology had it been continued.
Perhaps experience with it would have prevented so much money later
being wasted on the Shuttle.

MOL, on the other hand, was a complete waste of money. Initially
intended to be a reconnaisance platform, its mission was changed to
evaulating the military potential of man in space after it became
obvious that unmanned spy satellites could do perform the spy mission
much more cheaply. By the early 70s, even the Air Force admitted that
unmanned systems could perform all of its missions.

On 20 Oct 2005 03:29:14 -0700, wrote:

Rusty wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 15:12:19 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Too bad the Titan never launched a Dyna-soar, operational MOL or a
manned lifing body.

Why? What good would have come out of either program? IMHO both
Dyna-Soar and MOL were primarily expressions of the Air Force's
irrational desire to have its own manned space program. Dyna-Soar
might have produced some worthwhile technology had it been continued.
Perhaps experience with it would have prevented so much money later
being wasted on the Shuttle.

MOL, on the other hand, was a complete waste of money. Initially
intended to be a reconnaisance platform, its mission was changed to
evaulating the military potential of man in space after it became
obvious that unmanned spy satellites could do perform the spy mission
much more cheaply. By the early 70s, even the Air Force admitted that
unmanned systems could perform all of its missions.

In the same timeframe the U.S. government wasted $ 345-billion (1990)
dollars on the Vietnam war. Any amount of money the Air Force would
have spent on manned spaceflight would have been a drop in the bucket
compared to that. The Air Force would have had a separate manned space
capability. By only allowing NASA to have manned spaceflight
capability, we ended up with the Shuttle as the only way to orbit.

Rusty

On 20 Oct 2005 03:29:14 -0700, wrote:

MOL, on the other hand, was a complete waste of money.

....And, pray tell, where would you have preferred money be wasted?
Treehugger programs? Pseudowelfare boondoggles? Quasisocialist
sleight-of-hand tricks?

PLONK

Dolt.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

OM wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:15:39 -0700, Rusty
wrote:

Too bad the Titan never launched a Dyna-soar, operational MOL or a
manned lifing body.

...Too bad McNamara can't be forced to pay in pain for having been
responsible for those cancelled projects.

And a lot of other things. He's got a _lot_ to answer for.
That may be why he's lived so long - he's afraid to die.

(Sort of like the Captain Stern segment of "Heavy Metal" -
Lawyer: "If you throw yourself on the mercy of the Court, they may be
kind enough to bury you in an unmarked grave so that future
generations don't dig you up and desecrate your body")

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

Peter Stickney wrote:
OM wrote:

...Too bad McNamara can't be forced to pay in pain for having been
responsible for those cancelled projects.

And a lot of other things. He's got a _lot_ to answer for.
That may be why he's lived so long - he's afraid to die.

So *you* think the Mustang should have been on the market 2 years
earlier, eh?

=8-o

/dps

In article ,
Rusty wrote:
MOL, on the other hand, was a complete waste of money...
By the early 70s, even the Air Force admitted that
unmanned systems could perform all of its missions.

In the same timeframe the U.S. government wasted $ 345-billion (1990)
dollars on the Vietnam war. Any amount of money the Air Force would
have spent on manned spaceflight would have been a drop in the bucket...

Uh, so what? The fact that decisions with even bigger pricetags attached
were made stupidly does not mean that funding MOL would have been smart.
If the only purpose was to explore the possibilities of military manned
spaceflight, then "Blue Gemini" -- dedicated military Gemini flights --
would have made a lot more sense.

...The Air Force would have had a separate manned space
capability. By only allowing NASA to have manned spaceflight
capability, we ended up with the Shuttle as the only way to orbit.

We'd have ended up with the shuttle regardless. Don't forget that the
military gave up its expendable launchers for the shuttle; there's no
reason to think that they wouldn't have given up manned spacecraft on top
of those launchers too. At most, it might have meant an awkward joint
program (likely increasing costs) and a somewhat longer orbiter production
run.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

We'd have ended up with the shuttle regardless. Don't forget that the
military gave up its expendable launchers for the shuttle; there's no
reason to think that they wouldn't have given up manned spacecraft on top
of those launchers too. At most, it might have meant an awkward joint
program (likely increasing costs) and a somewhat longer orbiter production
run.

The US would have ended up with more Shuttles though and a longer
production run of them, so some of the present day Shuttle program
issues might not actually have come by.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++