Jump to content

Talk:Orbital Maneuvering System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Could reverse the redirect

[edit]

This should be redirected in the opposite direction. There is no reason for caps. Ksnow 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]

How long did it take to prepare it for the next flight

[edit]

Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program#Costs says "The toxic propellants used for the OMS/RCS thrusters required special handling, during which time no other activities could be performed in areas sharing the same ventilation system. This increased turn-around time" - Rod57 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering SystemOrbital Maneuvering SystemUnnecessary disambiguation, as "Orbital Maneuvering System" is enough and more widely used than "Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System". Requesting to withdraw the nomination because of the unanimous opposition. Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Data mismatch dv/isp/mass

[edit]

The figures, despite from seemingly reliable sources, don't add up.

Isp of 316 s ve of 3100 m/s ve = Isp*g0
dv 300 m/s
Orbiter dry mass 78,000 kg
Orbiter wet mass, or gross take-off weight 100-110,000 kg depending on source
OMS fuel capacity 21,660 kg
Payload 29,500 kg

This means:

wet mass 129,000 kg dry mass + payload + fuel
dry mass 59,000 kg wet mass - payload - fuel
dv 565-750 m/s dv = Isp * g0 * ln(m0/(m0-fuel)), for m0=129 and 100 tons, respectively

What am I missing?

Andersenman (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why even have the OMS?

[edit]

I feel this article should answer the question of why there was even a need to fit a separate OMS instead of using the main engines to perform its functions.--Cancun (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

eg. Main engines had no propellant after the External Tank was jettisoned. - Rod57 (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Orbital maneuvering system" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Orbital maneuvering system. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 2#Orbital maneuvering system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to add

[edit]

Other things to add - eg ref the OMS workbook :

  • propellants could be cross-fed between OMS pods
  • OMS propellant could feed the RCS
  • OMS pods had separate He tanks for the OMS and RCS systems
  • OMS pods had N2 tanks, for post-firing engine purge, (and maybe other things)
  • OMS engines could not be used under 70,000 ft (or nozzles might collapse)
  • OMS engines could gimbal (and had two redundant sets of gimbaling actuators)
  • - Rod57 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]