Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bellcore!petrus!karn
From: karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: Another (quick) satellite launch capability
Message-ID: <372@petrus.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Oct-86 00:54:49 EST
Article-I.D.: petrus.372
Posted: Mon Oct 27 00:54:49 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 05:44:01 EST
References: <338@alliant.UUCP> <7255@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Inc
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath sci.space.shuttle:6 sci.space:55

The Titan II uses "storable liquid" propellants as they're known in the
military. They're also "hypergolic", i.e., they ignite spontaneously on
contact.  The specific fuel is Aerozine-50, a 50-50 mixture of unsymmetrical
dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH) and plain hydrazine. The oxidizer is nitrogen
tetroxide.

Missiles like the Titans make poor ICBMs because they must sit fueled and
launch-ready for years at a time. The explosion of a Titan in Arkansas
a few years back was caused by a technician dropping a socket wrench that
punctured the Titan's tanks, resulting in a propellant leak.  It is likely
that the explosion and eventual sinking of the Soviet submarine off Bermuda
a few weeks ago had a similar cause.  It is interesting to note that the
majority of Soviet missiles are liquid fueled, unlike American missiles
which are (except for the Titans) now all solid fueled. (This has interesting
implications when comparing the two forces, especially when strategic
defenses are involved, but I digress...)

As a space launcher, the Titan II can put 3700 Kg into low earth orbit.
Without solid rocket boosters, this is considerably less than the 13600 Kg
capability of a Titan III-D. (Source: "The Rocket", by David Baker.)

Phil