Revision as of 10:26, 22 February 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Spaceflight}}, {{WikiProject Rocketry}}, {{WikiProject United States}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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]
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]
Oppose for now, will keep track of the discussion. The page indicates that the system was Space Shuttle specific, so using the present name seems a more accurate encyclopedic descriptor. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the name "Orbital Maneuvering System" is used in relation to other spaceflight systems, like the ESPA and Buran. Also keeps the title in line Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. -- Netoholic@ 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overly generic proposed title that could potentially exist on any spacecraft.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:05, 24 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.
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]