→External links modified: del per sourcecheck / checked=False
|
→Why even have the OMS?: can't use SSME
|
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
== Why even have the OMS? == |
== Why even have the OMS? == |
||
I feel this article should |
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.--[[User:Cancun|Cancun]] ([[User talk:Cancun|talk]]) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC) |
||
: Main engines had no propellant after the External Tank was jettisoned. - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 12:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== "Orbital maneuvering system" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
== "Orbital maneuvering system" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
||
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
[[File:Information.svg|30px]] |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This should be redirected in the opposite direction. There is no reason for caps. Ksnow 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Ksnow[reply]
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]
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 System → Orbital Maneuvering System – Unnecessary 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 (talk • subpages) 17:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]