TIME OF THE TITAN TITAN I and TITAN II ICBM TESTING & DEPLOYMENT 3443 

But of course!...it’s new, improved!

I only buy Titan II missiles when I want to target major Soviet cities and you should, too!

Do you have to be home when it’s delivered or will they leave it on the front porch?

Pfft. D5 trident all day.

Lol

that must have been cool to work on those missiles..

Wow, that is incredibly cool!

Yep not to mention both are HIGHLY toxic and produce toxic fumes. The main advantage were they were room-temperature storable liquids, unlike LOX that is a cryogenic liquid. Thus the missiles could remain fueled in the silos for long periods of time, whereas Atlas and Titan I had to be fueled shortly before launch, and could only stand "on alert" prepared for launch and waiting for a launch order for a certain amount of time, before the liquid oxygen, which constantly had to be "topped up" ran out and the missile had to be 'recycled' by de-fueling it and basically starting from scratch, which would take a LONG time (since the coffin-launchers or silos had to have their propellant systems refuelled via LOX tanker trucks and all of that.) There was a LOT of maintenance and hauling around liquid oxygen via tanker trucks back then to the silos/launch facilities as well, which was a big expensive headache and really limited the amount of time the missile was actually available and "on active alert" ready to be used. I saw a video on Jeff Quitney's page IIRC about the LOX tanker truck procedures, LOX testing, disposal of contaminated LOX, etc. Pretty interesting and gives a bit of insight into how difficult dealing with the LOX fueled missiles were. I used to drive a school bus and one of the other drivers was in the Air Force in the late 50's and early 60's and he worked on Atlas's in coffin launchers. Told me one time that part of their initiation was to take a rubber mallet and smack the side of the missile as hard as they could, and try NOT to knock themselves out when it bounced back, as the Atlas was a "stainless steel balloon" that had to be kept full of compressed gas at all times so it wouldn't collapse under it's own weight. They did have a special cradle that would support them when depressurized but they were usually kept pressurized like a tire to "keep them inflated" just in case. Karel Bossart's "balloon construction" was "ahead of its time" and very lightweight, but the "stage and a half" idea was kind of limiting to growth of the missile, although Atlas had a long and very decorated service as a space launch vehicle (as did Titan 2, and its descendents like Titan 3 and 4). When the liquid hydrogen Centaur stage, itself made with the same balloon tank construction, was added to the Atlas, it made a quite formidable space launcher. The old LOX fueled missiles weren't all that great for military missiles, though. The Soviets followed basically the same thought process- their first ICBM was the R-7, which is still in use today (well, it's derivative/descendant) as the Soyuz launcher. It was soon surpassed by the R-9 and R-11's that used storable hypergolic propellants like the Titan 2, however. The Soviets weren't particularly adept at building solid propellant ICBM's until basically the late 70's/early 80's, as most of their ICBM's and even SLBM's in their subs were storable liquid propellant powered until they were phased out and replaced with newer solid propellant missiles, which like the US was used in the subs first and then the land-based missiles. Still, in terms of specific impulse (amount of payload for the amount of propellant expended, essentially "fuel efficiency") the LOX/RP-1 (kerosene) is still king compared with the lower efficiency solid propellant, but for missiles the solid propellant is preferable for maintenance and alert time capabilities. LOX/RP-1 is still excellent for space launch, which is why SpaceX uses it in both stages of their Falcon 9. Hydrogen is more efficient yet, but much harder to work with because it is a *deep* cryogenic propellant and requires a lot of specialized design to handle and operate successfully in a vehicle... plus its density is super-low so it requires HUGE propellant tanks by comparison, increasing vehicle size/weight compared to RP-1. Hypergolic storable propellants are still useful in space vehicles, but they're troublesome to handle and work around and a maintenance nightmare for working on the vehicles, and highly toxic and requires a lot of special procedures and equipment to handle safely, so they're being phased out to the extent possible... particularly for main vehicle propulsion-- for secondary propulsion like maneuvering systems, though, they still have a lot of advantages compared to the difficulties working with it. We won't be seeing any more large rockets using toxic hypergolic storable propellants for the main engine propellant like Titan II/III/IV anymore, though. Even the Russians plan to phase out the hypergolic-fueled Proton and replace it with the LOX/RP-1 Angara... Later! OL J R :)

Did it phase you to know you were working directly with nuclear bomb delivery vehicles?

I had that mind boggling moment with computing power a few months back. I'm a mechanical engineer dabbling in that electrical wizardry. I was working with an stm32 microcontroller in a qfn48 package, and I held it on my finger tip and realized that on the tip of my finger sat more computing power and memory than the entirety of the Saturn V rocket that got us to the moon, even with it's redundant computers. And the chip on my finger had headroom on top of that.

Welcome back to it

Gemini used the Titan II - quite a different system...

Also the TItan 1 was never used as a satellite launcher.

Titan I wasn't used for a space launcher-- not sure why. They were pulled off alert and replaced by Minuteman and Titan II, the first of which was solid fueled and the latter was room-temperature hypergolic storable propellant fueled, and thus could remain fueled and on-alert for basically indefinite periods in the silos. Plus, the early silos like Titan I's and Atlas's were emplaced in were highly vulnerable to attack as they weren't hardened much compared to the later Minuteman and Titan II silos. I'm not sure WHY the Titan I's were never used or adapted to space launchers... it would have seemed pretty straightforward to do, and the LOX/kerosene propellants are actually easier to handle and more efficient for space launch than the toxic hypergolic propellants used in Titan II. Atlas had a long and glorious history as a space launch vehicle, not only for the manned program in Project Mercury but also for the Atlas/Agena used for satellites and in the Gemini program for docking missions; also the Atlas/Centaur was a very powerful space launcher when paired with the LOX/hydrogen powered Centaur upper stage, which was used for launching satellites and the unmanned probes like Surveyor to the Moon, and elsewhere. Later! OL J R :)

Well, it's a good thing we got our money's worth. Because we are still paying interest on the debt we incurred to build them.

Titan II was used for Gemini and Titan 1 was never used as a satellite launcher know your facts before you speak.

It also sounded like as well. I'm sorry.

The logo and insignia is more than tradition, it is used as a secondary orientation indicator tool for the engineers. They have special ultra long range camera specially made for tracking rockets as they leave the pad and they can tell if the rocket is rolling properly into inclination to it's ballistic path. Their camera look like astronomy telescopes such as these: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BlPfHV36G-g.html

@Paul Hogsten If you actually read the report, it clearly says a strange story was broadcast. It wasn't a true story. Nuclear scientists have known that the worst of the radiation is over within hours of the detonation of a typical Hiroshima‐sized device. Not sure what your point is, but I'm guessing you probably also think the Earth is flat.

@Paul Hogsten Got any proof beyond a document that literally said the exact opposite of what you thought it said? I mean there were a whole bunch of witnesses to the event that survived and have told their story. Let me guess, the govt faked it all and the survivors were actors?

@Paul Hogsten No, it doesn't. Reread the first few sentences VERY carefully. I used to spend time debunking flat Earth morons on tfes.org, and you sound exactly the same. I'll bet you think there is a dome over the Earth and we have never been to the moon, too? I sincerely hope you come to your senses. Until then, good luck with your delusional thoughts. I'm out.

Paul Hogsten My grandfather was within the first few army groups that entered Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped. If you’d ever said something like this to him, his head would’ve tilted and his brain would’ve refused to compute it. I know it’s easy to say these things from far away, having no idea about how these things work (aside from a few RU-vid videos) but it’s true, regardless of what you say. I’ve heard first hand, awful accounts of victims in the hospital...stories of unbelievable destruction and suffering from one of the most honest, humble men I’ve ever known. You obviously never had “that person” in your life so you see something, go “yeah, that sounds right!” and buy into it. The truth is the truth and a thousand RU-vid videos won’t change it.

@Paul Hogsten You must not understand the concept of half life there, brother

Thanks very, very much. Donations like this make it possible for us to save more rare and endangered films! Love our channel? Get the inside scoop on Periscope Film! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm

Yes... in the end. Atlas and Titan were developed pretty closely together. Titan was basically a "backup" design in case Atlas failed. Atlas was quite advanced for its time, with Karel Bossart's "balloon tank" construction (its tanks were made of sheet stainless steel between about 0.050-0.015 inch thick-- almost like tin foil! SO much so that the missile had to be "aired up" like a car tire or it would collapse under its own weight!) Igniting engines "in-flight" at the time was a VERY difficult problem with a lot of unknowns, and Atlas used the "stage and a half" design with a pair of booster engines flanking the center sustainer engine, all ignited on the ground at launch. It then dropped the cylindrical housing with the two outer engines in flight about 2 minutes into flight, and the center sustainer engine kept operating and pushed the missile on toward space. All the engines shared the same propellant tanks. All this made Atlas very lightweight for its size, BUT made it very fragile as well... Titan, coming later, used lessons learned both on Atlas and other launch vehicle development. The in-flight upper stage engine ignition problem was better understood by then and so its design was focused on the advantages of a true two-stage vehicle. LOX/kerosene was still the preferred propellants at the time, as with Atlas, but the Titan would have a more robust construction (not the "balloon tanks" of the Atlas) and could stand unpressurized. It used a pair of LR-87 engines on the first stage, and a single engine on the 8 foot diameter upper stage. Atlas came on line first, and was first based in "coffin launchers", which were essentially "hangars" with the missile stored horizontally inside. In the event of an attack, the shelter had to be rolled back, the missile stood up erect, and then fueled with the LOX/kerosene propellants, before it could be launched, a procedure that took a long time to conduct. The missiles were EXTREMELY vulnerable on the ground because even a distant nuclear explosion could wipe out the coffin shelters or severely damage them, rendering them useless. Silo basing was soon developed to help solve that problem. Of course, the Atlas and Titan were pretty large missiles, and their construction was rather light and flimsy, which made them easily damaged. The engineers calculated that the missiles would be severely damaged from being fired "out of the silo" and thus they developed huge elevator systems that would hoist the missile out of the silo, where it would be fueled and then launched, preventing that damage from the reflected blast waves of the engines as they were ignited in the silo. Of course this also made the silos unnecessarily big (thus meaning they were more prone to damage or "softer" targets-- better than the coffin launchers, but not "hardened" by modern standards, either) and were prone to damage by "nearby" nuclear explosions in an attack, and of course the missiles themselves were EXTREMELY vulnerable when hoisted above the silo for fueling and launch. Still not an ideal situation. By this time, space launch vehicles were getting more powerful and also dealing with the effects of damage at startup from reflected shockwaves off the launchers, even in open air. They were developing water suppression systems and other techniques to minimize or ameliorate the damage, and the engineers developed similar ideas to protect the missiles from damage allowing them to launched from WITHIN the silo, which greatly protected them during an attack. Part of it was the problems weren't well understood earlier, and damage to the missile from a "hot firing" from the silo was overrated, partly the problems were simply better understood and new ideas used to solve it. Thus the lessons were applied to subsequent systems like Titan II and Minuteman. Minuteman, being solid propellant, was much smaller and tougher constructed missile, so it was planned for "hot firing" from the silo from the get-go. Titan II had the second stage enlarged to 10 feet diameter (same as the first stage) and equipped with hypergolic storable propellants that could remain fueled for long periods of time, and improvements and strengthening of the design allowed them to be launched in "hot fire" mode from within the silos. Later! OL J R :)

Just theatre. That is why the lack of concern

Those weren't propellant lines. The missile is already fueled. Those are electrical connectors, (most likely) transmitting fuel and oxidizer tank pressures, and providing external power to guidance systems, etc.

Exciter damn Titans in cali

I walked around an abandoned one just a year ago lol. Now I can’t get enough info about them

765kvline The Titan I was a development step and thus not as reliable as the Titan II. Titan II used hypergolic propellants instead of kerosene and LOX. The second stage was different as well. It would be a difficult retrofit.

@@frankb2995 Thanks! I had always wondered.

They made a museum out of an intact Titan II silo and launch control center near Tucson, AZ. It's the Titan Missile Museum.

Although the silos you're referring to in Colorado are probably Titan I.

We have them in Chico CA as well.

Hey wireTeckel I think I found an old titan base while doodling around on Googlemaps, Does this ring any bells? It's in the middle of Wyoming, it could be Atlas I suppose? www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Wyoming,+USA/@41.3694238,-104.9840235,4318m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x875ee23448e12e69:0x26b02279d27d382f!8m2!3d43.0759678!4d-107.2902839?dcr=0

A good site to look at for this is: w3.uwyo.edu/~jimkirk/atlas.html

Yes

Martin Marietta came after merger in 1961 of Glenn L. Martin Company and American Marietta Corporation. Merger to Lockheed came about in 1995 forming Lockheed Martin.

Given them to ukrane. What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe an emp 😬😑

It wouldn't be comical if they hadn't yet invented spontaneously-combusting fuels at the time, RIGHT?

@@terryadams2652 Actually it isnt so much to do with the propellants being hypergolic (spontaineouslly igniting), but rather how the proppelant tends to "slosh" around alot inside the tank when the rocket is in a microgravity environment (like in a free-fall). The engineers and scientists at the time didnt know if they would be able to make the proppelant settle at the bottom of the tanks so that the engine would get enough fuel to operate.

@@thorvaldg.tveitereid8076 Did you thumbs up your own comment?

Yes I thought so too.

Missile silos are useless nowadays. Submarines and land moving ICBMs have neutralized silo's purpose.

@@pxc2k Um, no they haven't. The bulk of the ICBM forces of the United States and Russia are located in hardened land-based silos. Easier to maintain and secure and were easier to construct and supply, and are designed for larger missiles. SSBNs and road-mobile ICBMs are a useful backup to the main rocket deterrent force, but the longest-ranged ICBMs are too large to carry on either.

@@LordZontar You don’t need range when the launch platform moves closer to the target. US land based ICBM sites are fixed and hardened but not all silos are occupied.

Do you actually think aggressors don’t know where those silos are using recon satellites? Do you think they actually use Wikipedia for targeting? Do you actually think a non-state entity is going to gain access to them?

@@LordZontar The Trident IID5 has a longer range and bigger throw weight then the LGM30 "Minute Man III" However. All 450 LGM30s would effectively be out of the hole within a minute of each other after a validated launch order was executed or the keys were "Turned" Once a flight of 10 are launch commanded and then see another launch command from another launch crew. They pop smoke and are gone. So the launching sequence grows exponentially. And yes, even if a flight of 10 only receive a launch command from their facility and not the next flight a sequence starts and eventually they will fly. That time is classified However so not going to say. But this exists to give other launch crews a chance to inhibit the other flights launch as a safety measure if there is funny business and also at the same time makes sure 30 warheads head to target in the event they're the only ones left due to the others being destroyed. If a valid launch order comes down the missiles will be seeing many many launch commands and realistically 95% of the fleet will leave the silo. How many make it to terminal reentry is another deal all together. The US has always assumed 50% success rate when it comes to the fusing and subsequent nuclear detonation at target. That's why we have so many.

Society is a slaughterhouse. The economy is a giant make-work project.

This is particularly true of the space program... Lots of people gripe about "all that money wasted on space" but they don't realize that NOT ONE SINGLE DOLLAR has ever been thrown away in outer space-- every bit of the money spent "on space" is spent RIGHT HERE ON THE GROUND... it goes to pay for facilities and equipment, some of which will indeed be sent into space never to return, and on paying the scientists, engineers, technicians, and workers who design, construct, and man those facilities and operate those missions. ALL that money is then spent by those people to buy homes or cars or pay rent or pay for their education or all the other things people do with their money, just like everybody else. Unlike a lot of other things, money spent on space programs that employ the best and brightest also pays dividends by pushing forward human knowledge, advancing technology and the state of the art, and inventing new technologies, new ways of solving problems, and creating new ideas that then can be used on other things like communications or technology that then make their way into products that everybody else can use in their daily lives, or get jobs producing these "spinoffs"... Short-sighted people cry about all the money 'wasted on space' that would be "better spent on the homeless or the underprivileged" or whatever-- but all that money just goes down an unending rathole and just gets you another set of "projects" and section 8 housing full of government-dependent drug dealers and criminals who then prey on society to get more money... One is a cycle of improvement, the other is a cycle of decay. The same is basically true (to a lesser extent) of military spending. At least the space program produces knowledge and advances technology without producing ever more dangerous weapons... (well, more CAPABLE weapons-- it's the idiots in charge of those weapons who are the true danger... ) Later! OL J R :)

There wasn't socialism back then? Look at the marginal tax rates. Look at the national highway program. Look at the public education system. Look at the military draft.

@@lukestrawwalker Very well said, Luke. There will always be homeless and poor. The more money the government spends on programs to correct these problems, the worse they get. There will always be homeless and poor people. Always. Spending the money on technology is much better as you point out. Even when spent on government programs. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Those funds are still being spent. It's just we don't have visible major tech hurdles to overcome every other week. The F-35 and the Ford carriers are stuffed full of the latest and greatest, and much of it classified. In 10 maybe 20 years that stuff will be in the palm of your hand. Assuming we don't blow each other up with it that is.

That's not a Skybolt it's a Hound Dog. Skybolt was an air launched ballistic missile (ALBM), Hound Dog was a cruise missile (flew like a plane, with wings and jet engine.) ALBM's were worked on, they even air-dropped and test launched some Minutemans on pallets out the back of C-5's (IIRC) but in the end it was decided that the ALBM's had BOTH the drawbacks of an ICBM AND a bomber... (missiles cannot be recalled once launched, bombers are vulnerable to antiaircraft defenses). Thus the ALBM's like Skybolt were canceled before they ever were completed. This PO'd the Brits, who had already contracted for Skybolts to arm their V-bombers. When the US canceled the Skybolt, they offered the Brits the Polaris instead, which basically rendered the V-bomber force obsolete. The Brits then developed subs capable of carrying and launching Polaris SLBM's instead. The US DID eventually develop and field some ALBM's, but they were the SRAM (short range attack missile), nuclear armed ballistic missiles carried under the wings of B-52's or in rotary launchers in B-1B's or F-111's, designed to be launched from bombers before they penetrated Soviet airspace in a nuclear attack, to "soften up" the air defenses by taking out radar installations and anti-aircraft missile sites. They were not intended for strategic weapons like the Skybolt was. Later! OL J R :)

Hound Dog for sure

Thomas Talbot We apologize for the watermark, but the way we can afford to digitize and then put these videos up on RU-vid for free -- is by selling portions of them as stock footage for content creators, documentary filmmakers, and broadcasters. We have positioned the counter so that if you leave the adverts on, they are mostly covered over.

Sorry, you are wrong. I worked in these sites and safety was a primary concern.These systems kept us safe from any attack by Russia. A necessary evil for sure.

Gabs Rants This is the dumbest comment I ever read on RU-vid.. may be a year ago but still stupid.. how people make comments when they know nothing about it I will never get.. Our, the USA, nuclear force is safer than any conventional weapon system ever built. Better to do some research than spout off from the hip..

+Gabs Rants While you're correct on the oxidizer account, it's irrelevant because almost every rocket launch (including manned) has some sort of hypergolic propellant on board. Fuel that doesn't require an ignitor is very useful. It's practically impossible to accidentally detonate a nuke.

Your a crackpot.. they are safer than conventional weapons considering going off by accident...any weapon system has its dangers tho.. and they still stand guard over America keeping us free

If he read Command and Control, he'd know how many close calls we had because nukes were not safe enough. It wasn't until Bob Purifoy got his way after the Damascus incident did the weapons become safer. Nothing is completely safe. It's amazing we never had a nuke go off by accident. See: Command and Control by Eric Schlosser.

Oh come on. Admit it --- you came here to watch rockets explode.

@@LordZontar But not THAT kind of explosion.

and Titan was one of the reasons it didn't start. Nuclear weapons have largely kept the peace for almost 75 years now, on a global level.

When did the USA start a nuclear war?

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Not yet, we're practicing with conventional wars

@@clif9710 There is no comparison between the two.The US did attack Cambodia and Iraq which were later determined to be unjustified causes. The USSR did far worse.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver The US has attacked many nations in Latin America without there being any attack on the US, in some of them repeatedly. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were also attacked with no declaration of war on the US. 9/11 was done by Saudis, not by Afghanistan. To repeat my original statement per the video: "Because our nation will never strike a first blow" dates this film for sure.

@@clif9710 You repeated part of what I said, of course leaving out your friend the USSR, but did not answer my question: when did the USA start a nuclear war?

When did the USA launch a nuclear attack?

Spy satellites or manned military observation platform.

@@RideAcrossTheRiver Actually, it was a little more sinister than that.

?@@robertmartens7839 Cod liver oil?

This universe is a sim. Scientific proof already exists that it is. A lot of it.

Simbot... simulation-generated biological robot that mindlessly perpetuates the universe sim agenda and status quo. No matter how horribly wrongful and destructive the universe sim agenda and status quo might be. Simbots do as simbots are.

+Zoomer30 Russia's early ICBMs were about the same, though. The R-7 wasn't that much better than Atlas from a reliability standpoint.

***** do you even english, bro

Your first argument only applies to Atlas sites D & E, as F was hardened. In addition, despite what Hollywood has led you to believe, nuclear weapons will not explode if they are roughed around (dropping them, subjecting them to a blast, setting them on fire, etc.) as nuclear weapons don't work like conventional explosives. What system that was really dumb was Titan I (though the complex does look cool). Cryogenic fuel, launcher system with a terrible history of failure and stoppages, radio inertial guidance (instead of all inertial guidance like Atlas, Titan II, and Minuteman used), dependence on onsite generators for all of it's power, only capable firing 1 missile at a time even though the complex supported 3, and the technology was obsolete when they were put into service.

True, but they were the best we could do at the time and they were really big advances at the time. They had to be erected with the warhead supported externally until the rocket was fully fueled, or the weight of the warhead would crush it (like the dummy warhead did to our Atlas D at the Air Force Museum in August of 1987, when the compressor that kept it inflated failed).

well, the Atlas was an incremental evolution of the German V2, built by the same team of engineers. Essentially, it was a super size long-range version of the V2. Because of the speed new technology had to be applied, small innovations were accepted. Not unlike to Titan I which was only a stop-gap for the Titan II, and saw only 3 years of activation.

You have absolutely no comprehension of the 1960's. If you didn't live it, you can't know.

Go back to school, Bob

Chad Snow back then, you'd probably be one yourself.

Don't worry, the Titan I ICBM control center (were you ate, slept, and maybe worked depending on you job) was the only place in the entire complex that you can smoke.

Strangely, it's not about you.

Some have asked if I saw combat in the Air force. I reply; No, we wouldn't be here if I fought the war I trained for.

Would never strike a first blow... again.

Which "they?" Study up on NATO. A tactical strike was always on the table and expected would be needed to stop the WARSAW pact. Every single exercise at Upper Heyford while I was there ended with a mass launch of everything we had with practice nukes. And because the next "real world" event would be the base vaporizing the exercise was over. We didn't even have to catch the jets under exercise conditions. The war was over and we lost again. The WWII bombs? No one said jack about not using those bombs. They were built to use.

Did we bomb Pearl Harbor? Or did Japan? What was the "first strike?

You realize the people who made the title card are probably dead, right?

No, that would be the Saturn V.

Up to a point - the Titan was used to launch the 2-man Gemini capsules, which allowed the US to practice docking manoeuvres early on. The moonshots used the massively larger Saturn 1B and Saturn V rockets.

@@rattywoof5259 Yes; and didn't John Glenn do his orbital flights via Atlas?

@@vixapphire Yes, and it wasn't the sophisticated versions of Atlas we have today - it was a relatively unmodified ballistic missile launcher!

Your comment? It certainly is.

Sure thing, Mr. Short School Bus.

Sure....

check Wikipedia

How are things on the short school bus?

The reason you're alive today and able to spew you're liberal nonsense here on youtube is thanks to these weapons. Nuclear arms are deterrent weapons and kept the peace throughout the decades of the Cold War. Without a nuclear force we would've certainly perished long ago.

+MrSkywalker153 the ICBMs themselves are harmless, its the warheads that do the damage

So you'd have rather gone to war with the USSR? That would have been ugly, very ugly. Remember, nuclear weapons might be the most destructive things we can build, but Soviet bombers raining weapons on our cities wouldn't exactly be wonderful either.

Weapons like these preserved your right to be an a$$hole.