Talk:Staged combustion cycle

message: Shouldn't the honors for being the first closed cycle engine go to the NK-15 and not it's descendant (which never actually flew on the N-1, by the way)? 209.244.31.35 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the first closed-cycle engine was the 11D33, built by Melnikov in OKB-1 for the 4th stage (Block-L) of the Molniya rocket.  There is a reference to this in the book _RKK Energiya 1949-1999_. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NK-15 

message: Staged combustion cycle (rocket)#History states that "In the 1990s, ... Kuznetsov shipped an engine to the US for testing. Staged combustion had been considered by American engineers, but deemed impossible."  The Space Shuttle main engines, however, use staged combustion and they first flew in 1977.  Does anyone here have access to the source, "Cosmodrome History Channel, interviews with Aerojet and Kuznetsov engineers about the history of staged combustion," to clarify this.  --  Thinking of England (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was because of the high temp/pressure oxygen in these engines. The russians used oxidiser rich, hot, gas flows, but the metallurgy of the pipes and so forth gets interesting when you do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So was it the particular style of staged combustion (using oxygen-rich preburners) that American engineers had deemed impossible?  As it is presented now, the article seems to imply that they considered staged combustion in general to be possible only after they tested the NK-33 in the 1990's, but as indicated in the article, the SSMEs (first flying in 1977) uses staged combustion.  I wish I could find a transcript of that show in order to see the actual quote and its context. --  Thinking of England (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Oxygen (oxidizer) rich staged combustion was "deemed impossible". As mentioned before, the SSME flew in 1977 but it was a Fuel rich staged combustion engine. For the record: "In the staged combustion cycle, propellant flows through multiple combustion chambers, and is thus combusted in stages." Please correct me when I am wrong but it seems that the RL10 engine does not have a pre-burner, it is a Expander cycle engine. The mentioned "American engineers" probably thought about an oxidizer rich engine but they "deemed it impossible" so they came up with the SSME which is fuel rich, there is nothing wrong with that it is an achievement on its own. It could very well be that the article is incorrect but it is very hard to write something about an engine which was build but nobody knows about or was never build in the first place. Regards, --Felipe (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deemed impossible -- when? 

message: The caption to the drawing indicates that "An oxygen rich circuit is possible also, but less common"  Seeing as the majority of examples listed are Russian, which are Oxygen rich, should the caption be changed?  199.36.17.2 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of the examples listed is not Russian(6:5 ratio)? Yes, the wording is a little unfortunate, but i think that currently the majority of rockets being launched use fuel-rich circuits. VietGwon (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxygen rich vs Fuel rich 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Staged combustion cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120414212704/http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/03_sidebar3.html to http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2004/03_sidebar3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the beginning of History it says "Staged combustion (Замкнутая схема) was first proposed..." but Замкнутая схема does not mean "staged combustion."  It means "closed circuit," and combustion ain't there.
 
Couldst fix please?
David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation 

message: What does this refer to? coke?  Diepes (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explain "a fuel that will not coke"  

message: This is regarding this caption for the photograph:
:
An IP editor, Special:Contributions/23.162.0.162, replaced  with . I believe it makes more sense to emphasize the fact that the preburner shown in the image is just a system test. Then the second sentence explains the role of the pre-burner in the full engine. Of course, the engine is a full-flow staged combustion cycle engine - but since the photograph was already in the full-flow section of the article, I believe the intent of  was to refer to the final, assembled engine. Therefore, I recommend that the caption retains . Appable (talk | contributions)  21:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-flow vs full 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Staged combustion cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311011237/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14oct_betterrocket.htm?list804693 to https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14oct_betterrocket.htm?list804693
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)