FWD: Google Earth shows "The Boneyard"

On Feb 26, 12:02*am, OM wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-22billion-air...


http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&so...7,0.00284&z=19

Here are Titan II's

On 2/27/2010 6:25 PM, Me wrote:

Here are Titan II's

I thought we used all of them up on space launches.
With Titan IV being out of service, it's funny they haven't melted them
down yet.
I'm still annoyed that they couldn't find some space use for all the
Titan I's and just scrapped them.

Pat

On Feb 28, 1:46*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 2/27/2010 6:25 PM, Me wrote:

Here are Titan II's

I thought we used all of them up on space launches.
With Titan IV being out of service, it's funny they haven't melted them
down yet.
I'm still annoyed that they couldn't find some space use for all the
Titan I's and just scrapped them.

Only 13 of the 54 were used for spacelaunch. It ended up that a Delta
II was cheaper than a refurbed T-II/

As for the Titan I's, there were no launch pads for them. The cape
ones had been converted to T-II and T-IIIA. The VAFB were only silos
with elevators, not very useful for space launch.

On Feb 28, 1:37*am, OM wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:25:59 -0800 (PST), Me

wrote:
Here are Titan II's

...Nobody asked you.


Same goes for all of your comments.

On 2/28/2010 4:49 AM, Me wrote:

I thought we used all of them up on space launches.
With Titan IV being out of service, it's funny they haven't melted them
down yet.
I'm still annoyed that they couldn't find some space use for all the
Titan I's and just scrapped them.

Only 13 of the 54 were used for spacelaunch. It ended up that a Delta
II was cheaper than a refurbed T-II/

As for the Titan I's, there were no launch pads for them. The cape
ones had been converted to T-II and T-IIIA. The VAFB were only silos
with elevators, not very useful for space launch.

I hadn't thought of the pad problem, that really does screw the pooch in
regards to using it for space launches.
What really would have been interesting is if we had gone with the
original big five-engined Atlas ICBM design; that would have made a very
useful space launch vehicle, and I can picture it still being in service
today with a cryogenic upper stage.
I keep wondering what the reaction of the engineers who were working on
the Thor IRBM would have been if you had told them that fifty years in
the future a descendent of their missile was going to be landing rovers
on Mars. They would have probably thought you were clean out of your mind.
It's sad to see the Delta II going out of service; we sure got good
value for our money out of them.

Pat

Pat

On Feb 28, 7:24*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

With Titan IV being out of service, it's funny they haven't melted them
down yet.
I'm still annoyed that they couldn't find some space use for all the
Titan I's and just scrapped them.

Just reread the first comment. There was nothing on the T-II's that
was used for the T-IV's.
Aside from the pad issues preventing use of the decommissioned T-I's,
I never found a reason why there wasn't an Titan-I SLV. I guess
Atlas had all the missions covered.

On Mar 1, 8:17�am, Me wrote:
On Feb 28, 7:24�pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

With Titan IV being out of service, it's funny they haven't melted them
down yet.
I'm still annoyed that they couldn't find some space use for all the
Titan I's and just scrapped them.

Just reread the first comment. �There was nothing on the T-II's that
was used for the T-IV's.
Aside from the pad issues preventing use of the decommissioned T-I's,
I never found a reason why there wasn't an Titan-I SLV. � I guess
Atlas had all the missions covered.

if there are no pads for he remaining boosters why havent most of them
been scrapped? or does the air force still have a launch pad for them
somewhere like vandenberg?

although whats the problem with launching out of a silo? was recently
in the one at tuscon, it gave awesome access to the booster and
payload.

so why couldnt they have been silo launched?

On Mar 1, 8:43*am, " wrote:

1. if there are no pads for he remaining boosters why havent most of
them
been scrapped? or does the air force still have a launch pad for them
somewhere like vandenberg?

2. although whats the problem with launching out of a silo? was
recently
in the one at tuscon, it gave awesome access to the booster and
payload.

so why couldnt they have been silo launched?

1. It was SLC-4W, but that was decommissioned. It costs nothing to
leave the boosters as is.

2. No it doesn't give good access to a spacecraft, only to a
warhead. vehicles with a spacecraft are taller and would extend out
the silo. Also, the launch environment is more harsh than a pad.

On 3/1/2010 5:17 AM, Me wrote:

Just reread the first comment. There was nothing on the T-II's that
was used for the T-IV's.
Aside from the pad issues preventing use of the decommissioned T-I's,
I never found a reason why there wasn't an Titan-I SLV. I guess
Atlas had all the missions covered.


Given the timeframe of their military decommissioning, one could have
seen them being used as target carriers for the Nike-Zeus ABM program,
to give it something realistic moving at ICBM velocities to attempt to
get in kill distance of.
If you go to the 4:20 point in this YouTube video, you can see them
doing tests of a model Dyna-Soar/Titan I that is being elevated out of
its launch silo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkQnO...eature=related
I noticed that the Titans down at the Boneyard seem to have both their
first and second stage engines removed; did any of their engines get
recycled for Titan IV?

Pat

On Mar 1, 3:41*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

I noticed that the Titans down at the Boneyard seem to have both their
first and second stage engines removed; did any of their engines get
recycled for Titan IV?


T-IV used new uprated engines