Talk:RS-68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Solar System
	WikiProject Mars	Importance to Mars: Mid
	WikiProject Moon	Importance to Moon: Mid
	WikiProject Spaceflight	Importance to Spaceflight: Mid
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines.

Suggesting some details regarding theory of operation. The ratio of LH2 to LOX is 2:1. Fuel is moved via turbopump to the combustion chamber. An EED device starts the ignition. Exhaust is pushed out through the cone. Hot gas is tapped at the combustion chamber. This hot gas is fed to the turbopump. Hot gas is also brought to the top of both the LH2 and LOX tanks used as a press line. LH2 also cools the cone. Statikfire20:00, 5 November 2007 (CST) Image:RS68-Simple.gif

This article claims the RS-68 was the first new US engine in 25 years. Well, what about the FASTRAC? Maury 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The FASTRAC project was never completed. It was never fired during a test flight, ground tested only. Martin

True, but every project that had selected it was canceled out from under it. It was no problem with the engine itself. Maury 13:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying it was the engine's fault. Regardless, the fact of the matter is, FASTRAC didn't fly, and it can be argued that to be successfully "developed", a rocket engine needs to fly on something. The RS-68 is the first engine in 25 years to do so. Ergo, first new US engine developed in 25 years. Nick L. 15:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry, just saw this now... "it can be argued that to be successfully "developed", a rocket engine needs to fly on something" By this remarkable definition, the M-1 was never developed. Nor the J-2T, J-2S, HG-3, KIWI, or literally dozens of other engines. I'm sure the engineers who built them, and the politicians that paid for it, would be absolutely fascinated to hear they were never actually "developed". Having personally witnessed several non-developed engines, I have to admit I'm a little skeptical. If you can find me a single definition in any reputable source that even hints that "developed" in any way remotely requires flew, I'd love to see it. In the meantime my original objection stands. Many engines have been developed in the US over this period, and several of them have even flown. Maury 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• No problem. Sorry about that, I was a bit thick about it that year ago. Nick L. 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And my apologies too, for being such an ass. Maury (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wrong link cbc/ccb

link to common booster core(cbc) is incorrectly linked to common core booster(ccb) which is a different propulsion system entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelta12 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

should redirect now to Delta IV. --Duk 06:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engine Mixture Ratio

Are you sure about the 1:6 ratio? I build 1st Flight Delta IV down in Trinity Alabama, and I quite vividly remember the Hydrogen tank being twice the size of the LOX tank. Jason —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

see [1]

--Duk 19:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power rating

This seems trivial, but just to be sure it's not some weird technical aberration, it should say that the rocket operates at sea level and in a vacuum both at 100% power, correct?

Alucardtepes 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maximum thrust for rocket engines is often stated as greater than 100%. Designers usually set a required minimum thrust, and then during testing it is often found that the engine produces more than this maximum. Rather than change the "100% thrust" value, which could involve a lot of paperwork and other difficulties, they just express it as greater than 100%, for example 102%. Hope this helps, Nick L. 23:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)