Talk:NK-33

message: This may be a stupid question, but can information be added to the article on whether the technical drawings and documents necessary to make more NK-33s still exist?  From the paragraph "When the N-1 program was shut down, all work on the project was ordered destroyed. A bureaucrat instead took the engines, worth millions of dollars each, and stored them in a warehouse." it is not clear whether anything other than the physical engines themselves was preserved.
Well, after cancelling the N-1 poject all documentation and technological tools were supposedly abolished, only engines were saved by plant's stuff. Also authors should take in attention, NK-33 is modernised version of NK-15. Onboard N-1 NK-15 were installed. Hence, Russia should start producing NK-33 from very beginning. 84.204.75.2 (talk) 08:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: The source says 136:1. An anonymous editor has twice replaced this with 120:1, on the grounds that back pressure reduces the thrust at sea level.
I disagree with, and have removed this, on two grounds:
# doing so is OR (it disagrees with the quoted source)
# vehicle performance is usually relatively modestly affected by sea level thrust/weight ratio, but more strongly affected by burnout mass (which typically occurs in near vacuum conditions) and the average Isp.
- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The thrust:weight ratio of the engine, as with other metrics like power/weight ratio of engines is quoted at its peak. Since the peak is in vacuum, and since the source gives it as 136.66:1 you don't really have a leg to stand on. The weight and pressurant left in the ullage space of the vehicle is completely irrelevant to the isolated engine performance... which is what this article is about.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Thrust/weight

message: The oxygen-rich technology lives on in the RD-170/-171 engines, and their RD-180 and recently developed RD-191 derivatives. These engines still use the multiple combustion chamber and nozzle topology like the RD-107/108 engines of Soyuz, thus preventing them from reaching the NK's high thrust-to-weight ratio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.211.224 (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Requeste for Section 

message: Please be sure that all additions to the NK-33 are verifiable.  Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.  As a courtesy to editors who may have added unsourced claims previously, before Wikipedia citation policy is what it is today, many of the existing unsourced claims have been tagged  to allow some time for sources to be added.  N2e (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:The Bushranger has suggested in the edit comments that individual  tags on specific claims be removed and replaced by a section tag indicating that more footnotes are needed.  I'm afraid that won't quite do.  I've seen many times that editors get up in arms if section content is deleted after a section footnotes needed (or article footnotes needed) tag has been on the article for many months.  The general community practice seems to be that unsourced content should not be deleted without the specific claims, at least at the paragraph level, having been specifically and explicitly identified and left tagged for some time, generally a month or more.  Thus, I will re-add the tags on the specific assertions I am challenging, since they have no source whatsoever.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and sources are needed 

message: It is based on NK-33, but engine controls and some other things are changed. The main components-
the thrust chamber, nozzle, turbopumps  I believe are same as NK-33.  --Aflafla1 (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJ-26 is not exactly NK-33 

message: This article mentions "subcooled" in a couple of places. We have an article on subcooling, but I'm not sure if that is a proper explanation of the term as used here. --agr (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcooled? 

message: Corporate history marches on, in 2013 Aerojet was merged into Aerojet Rocketdyne. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerojet Merged Into Aerojet Rocketdyne 

message: This section currently contains this sentence:  "In addition, since the NK-33 uses subcooled LOX and kerosene, which have similar densities, a single rotating shaft could be used for both turbopumps.[3] "
This has a few problems. 
1. the referenced article does not claim anything about the turbopump. The reference is a useful source for the specifications box, but not much else. So it'd have to be removed here. 
2. Subcooling kerosene and LOX have densities about 50% apart (0.8 and 1.2 kg/dm^3), "similar" isn't the word I'd use to describe that. Non-subcooled kerosene and LOX also differ by about 50% (see http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14456/does-the-nk-33-engine-require-subcooled-kerosene-so-cold-that-it-turns-to-wax). The delta between subcooled and non-subcooled situations is small, I don't see it being a critical improvement. 
3. Aerojet ran tests on an NK-33, running it on non-subcooled propellant and LOX for up to 140 s (http://lpre.de/resources/articles/AIAA-1998-3361.pdf). That indicates subcooling is not a prerequisite for having both pumps on a single shaft.
4. I can't find any source that says subcooling is a requirement to have a single-shaft turbopump. 
There's also this sentence: 
"The turbopumps require subcooled liquid oxygen (LOX) to cool the bearings. "
I haven't been able to find a source to verify or disprove that. The successful tests running on non-subcooled LOX suggest the engine does not need the LOX to be subcooled. 
So what I have is 2 statements that aren't correct, a document that confirms they aren't correct, but no sources that I can refer to to make correct statements on the design of the turbopump.  For now, I've removed the incorrect statements. Will look for more info, but haven't found anything relevant yet. Zounds011 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added Mr Eberly's (Orbital ATK Antares Deputy Program Manager) comment on Antares's ground support facilities as another citation for NK-33's subcooling. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design section 

message: Hello Beesmill. I appreciate the time you took to create a schematic layout of the NK-33 but unfortunately it is not correct. The NK-33 is a oxygen-rich staged combustion cycle engine, the schematics shows a fuel-rich engine like the RS-25. Regards, --Felipe (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Beesmill, yes I saw the movie. a couple of times actually. In Pre Burner.png on the NK-33 page you see a fuel-rich pre burner where ALL the fuel goes trough the pre-burner. However the NK-33 is a oxygen-rich engine, this means that ALL the oxygen goes trough the pre-burner and not the fuel. Please have a look on the RD-180 page, it to has a schematic overview of the engine, the NK-33 basically works on the same principle. Regards, --Felipe (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematic layout of the NK-33 (Pre Burner.png) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on NK-33. 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/20071028111624/http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk43.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/engines/nk43.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814162849/http://www.aerojet.com/capabilities/spacelift.php to http://www.aerojet.com/capabilities/spacelift.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1012/19aj26test/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512185739/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news%2Frocketplane091007.xml&headline=RpK%27s%20COTS%20Contract%20Terminated%20&channel=space to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news%2Frocketplane091007.xml&headline=RpK%27s%20COTS%20Contract%20Terminated%20&channel=space
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061014132745/http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/nk33_specs.shtml to http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/nk33_specs.shtml
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) 06:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NK-33. 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/20131029202341/http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1 to http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_06_24_2013_p32-590271.xml&p=1
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) 22:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)