Talk:RD-180

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RD-180 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Rocketry Mid‑importance

	Rocketry portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin, specs, etc.

Clarified and structured the article a little bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.155.71 (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move : RD-180 (rocket engine) → RD-180 : done

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per unopposed request, and per WP:DAB. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RD-180 (rocket engine) → RD-180 — No need to disambiguate, no other articles called RD-180. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mention of Atlas V

It seems a bit odd that the first reference to Atlas V does not appear until the end of the third paragraph in this (as of now current) version of the article. (sdsds - talk) 03:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today version is little bit better. I think it is “embarrassment” a reason for this. Calimero (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Secretary Hagel cited saying RD-180 manufacturing in US needs to be looked at

See this Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/13/us-usa-russia-engines-idUSBREA2C2CL20140313 This article might need updating to reflect this development, the info about RD-AMROSS may be a bit out of date as well.. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By now, mid-September 2014, the article has been significantly updated to reflect both the availability concerns, and political involvement in those concerns as you mention, and the decision taken by ULA to select a new engine to replace the RD-180 on a successor to the Atlas V. So, in the event, it does not appear as if ULA and Rocketdyne will implement the contract provision that (for a few years at least) would have allowed them to manufacture the RD-180 in the US. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date in info box unclear

T me it is unclear what the Date in the sidebox represents. I think generic labels such as Date should be avoided. I suggest using something like "Development period" or "Usage period" or something along those lines - more specific. francesco3 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps 'First flight' date is more appropriate. Like for the RD-170. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.224.250 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the price history of the RD-180 - what commentary has that attracted

Can we add something about the price history of the RD-180 - What GD paid, what ULA pay, and if people have commented on the cost being high or low ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ULA were keeping the price they pay RD-Amross secret in 2014 [1]. : [2] says Energomash "made nine RD-180s in both 2014 and 2015 at a price point of about $10 million a piece, Luzin estimated" (but RD-Amross may sell them for more to ULA). Reuters Nov 2014 say RD-Amross buy them from Energomash for $20.2 million each on averages and sell them for $23.4m each. - Rod57 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of RD-180…?

What Americans use instead of RD-180?!? Calimero (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Calimero: Instead of replacing just the RD-180, United Launch Alliance is replacing the entire Atlas V rocket with the Vulcan Centaur. Vulcan Centaur uses the BE-4, not the RD-180. However, in reality "Americans" now depend almost exclusively on a completely different rocket, Falcon 9. Atlas V has only flown 2 times in 2023. Falcon 9 has flown 87 times in 2023. Falcon 9 uses nine SpaceX Merlin engines. -Arch dude (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replay!

so Americans started Vulcan Centaur project in 2014. right after sanctions against Russia… but why USA did use Soviet RD-180 in first place?

The American company Lockheed Martin picked the RD-180 in 1995 or so because NPO Energomash had an excellent reputation and they bid a very attractive price. At the time the US enjoyed excellent relations with Russia. United Launch Alliance chose to develop Vulcan Centaur mostly because they wanted to replace their two separate rocket families with a single family. RD-180 was not a choice due to the sanctions, but it was not a choice anyway because they wanted to use methane, not kerosene.-Arch dude (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and why did you put Americans in quote? Calimero (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because a company made this decision, not a government. Also, Falcon 9 now accounts for about 90% of the world's payload mass to orbit and about 50% of the world's launches, so it is used for lots of non-american payloads. -Arch dude (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RD-180 is simply the most reliable and efficient liquid fueled rocket in the world. The primary reason for choosing the RD-180 is not price, but sheer performance. NPO Energomash is the world leader in this technology. It should be noted that ULA currently uses the RD-180 in its recent Atlas V launch. Orbital Sciences and the U.S.A.F. uses the Russian engine regularly as well as it has the best reliability record of payload performance of all engines in its class. It is not an issue of price. U.S. rocket technology has fallen behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.194.140 (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]