Talk:RS-25
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theRS-25 article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
| Archives:1,2 |
 | RS-25 has been listed as one of theEngineering and technology good articles under thegood article criteria. If you can improve it further,please do so.If it no longer meets these criteria, you canreassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status:Good article | |||||||||||||
| This article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The result of the move request was:Moved.(closed by non-admin page mover)SITH(talk)14:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle main engine →RS-25 – The designation of "Space Shuttle Main Engine" has shifted from being thetitle of this engine to adescriptor, and it's a misleading one at that. With theSLS now using these engines, along with NASA's shift to using the RS-25 name, I think keeping the old SSME name is doing more harm than good. We don't call theF-1 theSaturn V main engine after all. It's much more concise to say, "the space shuttle used three RS-25s as its main engines," than it is to say, "the SLS will use four Space Shuttle Main Engines." One's a proper rocket engine name, the other's anapplication of said rocket engine.
Basically, calling this rocket by it's technical designation is far more concise, consistent, and precise than calling it by its former use. While the latter was justifiable when the one and only application of the RS-25 was as part of the space shuttle system, it no longer makes sense to use that designator as the engine's primary name. Anyone searching for "space shuttle main engine" on wikipedia will understand immediately why they were redirected to an article named "Rocketdyne RS-25," but someone unfamiliar with their use in the shuttle program might be confused why their query for "RS-25" redirects them to "space shuttle main engine." -Jadebenn (talk)08:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section has severely out-of-date info and could probably use some love. -Jadebenn (talk)08:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see how many STS launches they were designed to do between overhauls (3 I think) or how many launches in total they were designed or intended for. Which parts had to be specially designed so that the engine was reusable ? How much did the design for reuse, increase the development cost and the cost per engine ? -Rod57 (talk)12:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1.4.1 (Controller - Main Valves) mentions that the Chamber Coolant Valve (CCV) is 100% open at high throttle settings, "for maximum cooling," and is progressively closed at low throttle setting "for reduced cooling". This seems to contradict the schematic diagram of the engine in this same article (which is derived from various sources). The CCV appears to function as a bypass valve, bypassing the coolant plumbing and going straight to the preburners. Therefore, it appears (to this layman) that closing the CCV would actuallyincrease the fuel flow through the nozzle and chamber cooling sections, as less fuel is able to bypass and would be then increasingly forced through the two sections of plumbing that provide cooling. If this is the case, my guess is that at lower thrust levels, the mass flow through the engine is less and therefore the regenerative cooling is reduced, so the CCV is closed to pick up the slack. Indeed, the source referenced at the end of section 1.4.1, reference 5, doesn't mention anything about "maximum cooling" or "reduced cooling," and simply states the valve positions for various throttle levels, which makes me think that these statements in the article are incorrect. Of course, I could be entirely wrong about this - perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can elaborate.— Precedingunsigned comment added by67.83.150.17 (talk)17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To my enthusiastic surprise, a photo taken by me is used on this page. Can I get credit for it? It is currently labeled as being owned by someone else and all the data referring to date and camera settings are all wrong. Thank youDaj750 (talk)18:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the title says, the source from web.archive that cited saysChamber Pressure: 204.08 bar , 1 bar = 100 000 Pa, so it should be 20.408 MPa (2,959.93 psi), and metric units first.MrBart31 (talk)08:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
