Talk:RD-170

message: "Even if one thrust chamber fails, others can compensate by firing for a longer duration." - I'm sure it's not true. I think if one chamber fails, you get a bit BOOM (pressure of hundreds of atmospheres). Even in hypothetical low-pressure version of RD-170, there is no valve to cut off gas flow from pump(s) to ruptured/broken chamber, so you still end up with Bad Things Happening.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.148.177 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chamber failure

message: Ignition in the Specifications is noted as Hypergolic.  
Propellants are listed within Introduction as RP-1 (Russian equiv) and LOX.
These do not appear to be Hypergolic, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant
July 14, 2009  FabianWilcox (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some engines use hypergolic fluids as an ignition source. This is independent of the actual propellants. Indeed, the F-1 engines of the Saturn V used hypergol cartridges as their ignition source.63.3.21.1 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean that this engine (as well as F1) is not restartable? Or there is enough hypergolic fuel for several engine starts? Mikus (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true, the F1, RD-170, and most first stage liquid engines are not designed for restartability. The J2 on the Saturn V upper stages was, however, designed to be restartable (this was useful for allowing it to launch into a temporary parking orbit to get into location for the final burn to the moon). The J2 couldn't be throttled at will like a hypergolic rocket, though.108.131.13.16 (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifications 

message: is F-1A. Not RD-170.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostera (talk • contribs) 12:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the most powerfull engine is Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster RD-170 is a most powerful liquid engine. 87.249.56.160 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The F-1A was never built, it was only ever designed. The RD-170 is the largest liquid fueled rocket engine ever actually used.108.131.13.16 (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The F-1A was certainly built. You're thinking perhaps of the F-1B JohndanR (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  the most powerfull engine 

message: The first paragraph states that the turbine is rated at 170 MW. Specifications states that it produces 192 MW. Clarification needed.
(There are also a couple typos:
RD-170 - developed for use (delete the) on the Energia...
RD-180M - possibility of constructiNG several new variants...)
69.72.92.207 (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turbine power 

message: I'm dubious the article correctly conveys information in the available sources related to the term, "RD-180M." The implication of calling this a variant is that it would be something different from RD-180. But that's not the actual history. Early in the 1990s, as part of a contract with Pratt-Whiteny, RD-180 was under development at Energomash. In 1995, before any engines where shipped, the agreement regarding the RD-180M requirements was enter into. RD-AMROSS was created in 1997; first flight of an RD-180 was in 2000. So the engine which first flew as "RD-180" was already an "RD-180M." (sdsds - talk) 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RD-180M "variant" misleading or incorrect 

message: RD-170 was only developed for the booster of the Energia complex. For the Energia itself they took four one-chambers engine RD-0120. So in summary they had four RD-170 engines, one in each booster, and four RD-0120 engines in Energia launch vehicle.
--2k11m1 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the typo you pointed out. The Energia article has it right, and is properly sourced. Greg (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants / RD-170 

message: Designed for reuse, some were recovered, some tested after use ?, but were any ever reflown ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed for reuse, tested after use, but ever reused ? 

message: The article text currently has a section about the RD-171MV, and that it's all Russian. But it fails to say much about the RD-171M itself. I'd guess that the RD-171M has Ukrainian involvement? It would be nice to have a properly neutral mention of it. Greg (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukraine