Titan 4 Is Key to Air Force Goals : Rocket: The powerful launch vehicle is the service’s answer to NASA’s space shuttle. It too has suffered major setbacks.

The Titan 4 booster rocket that erupted in fire at Edwards Air Force Base on Friday while being assembled by crane is a key part of the Air Force’s answer to the space shuttle--a powerful, unmanned rocket that can launch heavy payloads into space.

But the $200-million-a-shot Titan, like its civilian counterpart, has had its problems.

The Titan 4, the latest in a generation of rockets that grew out of the intercontinental ballistic missile program, is a “top-of-the-line launch vehicle,” said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

At the same time, he added, it is over budget and far behind schedule.

Air Force officials have never been comfortable relying on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to launch its satellites into orbit--as Congress ordered it to do more than a decade ago as part of an effort to make the shuttle “economical” by ensuring an ample supply of customers. After the space shuttle Challenger exploded in January, 1986, the Air Force successfully renewed its effort to win congressional approval to get back into the launching business.

The Titan 4, designed to carry as much payload into orbit as the shuttle, is supposed to free the Air Force of its dependence on NASA.

But Friday, with the civilian space shuttle fleet grounded because of hydrogen fuel leaks, the Air Force was left trying to explain a massive fire that is bound to raise the same kind of questions in Washington that NASA has been trying to answer about its shuttle program.

The fire, of course, is not the same sort of problem that has been confronting NASA--which in addition to its shuttle problems has a space telescope that doesn’t work right--but the accident once again reveals the vulnerability of any space program.

“This (the Titan 4) is our way of lifting heavy payloads for the future,” Logsdon said. “This is it.”

And the Air Force, he added, may be guilty of placing all its eggs in one basket, just as NASA did with the shuttle.

“It’s fair to say there has been criticism of the Air Force for placing all its eggs in a new basket, called Titan 4,” he said. “It owns the Titan 4, whereas it didn’t own the shuttle.”

Thus, Logsdon noted, problems with that vehicle would leave the Air Force open to the same kind of criticism that NASA faces--placing too much reliance on one system.

Although the overall record of the Titan program has been good, with more than 200 successful launches dating back to 1962, the newer-generation vehicles have had their problems. Two Titan 34D rockets--the Titan 4’s immediate predecessor--failed during launch attempts at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1985 and 1986, the second coming just months after the Challenger disaster.

In addition to Vandenberg, Titans can also be launched from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, just south of the Kennedy Space Center. Both sites have seen the launches of Titans in the past, but the Titan 4 represents a new stage in the nation’s space program.

Rockets are not launched from Edwards because they would have to travel over populated areas during their hazardous early ascent. The Titan involved in Friday’s accident was at the Air Force’s Astronautics Laboratory at the sprawling base, where it was undergoing tests.

The powerful rocket uses a two-stage, liquid-fueled main propulsion system, plus two solid rockets strapped to its sides. The solids give the rocket its initial lift off the pad, and the first-stage main engine fires shortly after the boosters separate from the rocket. The second stage ignites last, carrying the payload either into Earth orbit or, at least potentially, into deep space.

Solid rockets, like the one that caught fire Friday, have been controversial since they were introduced in the U.S. space program. Critics argued that once a solid is ignited, it cannot be shut down. Supporters argued that solids would be the most reliable way of boosting the carrying capacity of large rockets.

The fuel used in the Titan 4 booster, as in all solid-fuel rockets, is highly flammable, as Friday’s accident demonstrated.

“Basically, a solid rocket is like a firecracker,” Logsdon said. “You treat it with a great deal of respect.”

Once the two solid rockets are ignited, the fuel is supposed to burn for two minutes in a controlled fire that generates 1.4 million pounds of thrust.

The solids are blasted free of the main rocket after their fuel has been exhausted, and the liquid-fueled engine takes over.

The Titan 4’s capacity is slightly less than the shuttle’s. It can put almost 10,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth. At that altitude the payload orbits at just the right speed to remain stationary over one spot on the Earth’s surface, an ideal situation for communications satellites.

The capacity varies according to which launching site is used. Any rocket can carry a heavier load into space from the Cape than it can from Vandenberg. Payloads are launched into equatorial orbit from the Cape, so the rocket benefits from the spin of the Earth, which is equivalent to around 1,000 miles an hour at the Equator. The effect is similar to that of throwing a rock out the window of a moving car.

But payloads are launched into polar orbit from Vandenberg, and that slingshot effect is lost, so the weight of the load must be reduced.

CHRONOLOGY OF TITAN ACCIDENTS

Here is a chronology of Titan accidents, involving various models, over the last 25 years. Several accidents also occurred in earlier years. Sept. 5, 1988: An expended first stage section of a liquid-fuel Titan 2 rocket launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base exploded after separating from the second stage of the craft, which was otherwise successful in completing its mission of placing four spy satellites in orbit.

April 18, 1986: A Titan 34D carrying a secret spy satellite exploded nine seconds after being launched from Vandenberg, causing minor injuries to 58 people. Insulation on one of the solid-fueled booster rockets separated from the rocket casing, causing a “burn-through.”

Aug. 28, 1985: A Titan 34D was destroyed along with a spy satellite in a launch failure at Vandenberg Air Force Base caused by an oxidizer leak and a pump malfunction in the core booster.

Sept. 19, 1980: A Titan 2 missile exploded in its silo near Damascus, Ark., after a workman dropped a wrench and punctured its fuel tank. One man was killed and at least 21 were injured. Several others were stricken ill by toxic fumes during the days after the explosion. A nuclear warhead, thrown 200 yards by the explosion, landed without incident. The explosion was the eleventh Titan missile accident in Arkansas in 18 months.

March 25, 1978: A Titan 3C with twin military communications satellites was ordered destroyed shortly after malfunctioning on liftoff from Cape Canaveral. In other accidents in 1978, two people were killed and 27 were hospitalized in Kansas and Arkansas after exposure to highly toxic fumes associated with the liquid propellants.

Aug. 26, 1966: A Titan 3C rocket launched from Florida exploded shortly after liftoff, destroying a payload of eight communications satellites.

Aug. 9, 1965: A flash fire caused when a welder’s torch struck a line carrying combustible fluid killed 53 civilian workers who were renovating a Titan 1 silo near Damascus, Ark., to accommodate a newer Titan 2 missile.

Compiled by Times editorial researcher Michael Meyers