Talk:Reaction engine

Move to 'Liquid Fuel Engine'

calling them 'rocket' engines is ambiguous, it could mean either liquid or solid fuel engines. Thecoshman (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Image broken

I broke the picture trying to make it clear the picture was from before 0.18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregroxMun (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 July 2014‎ (UTC)

The reason was, that {{version}} does add a link on it's own and the caption was already a link. So there was then a link within a link.— xZise [talk] 12:08, 3 July 2014 (CDT)

Wikipedia says reaction includes jet engines...

Our terminology is wrong. So says the Wikipedia article on Reaction engines.

From the article (emphasis added):

A reaction engine is an engine or motor which provides propulsion (thrust) by expelling reaction mass, in accordance with Newton's third law of motion. This law of motion is most commonly paraphrased as: "For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force".

Examples include both jet engines and rocket engines, and more uncommon variations such as Hall effect thrusters, ion drives, mass drivers and nuclear pulse propulsion.

This article starts with “...an engine that generates thrust solely through the use of onboard propellant.” Wikipedia's article on rocket engines starts with defining them as using “only stored propellant mass for forming its high speed propulsive jet”. The KSP engine types also match with Wikipedia's list of rocket engine types. Really, this article's contents should be in “Rocket engine”.

Currently, this article includes RCS thrusters. They do qualify as rocket engines for using only onboard propellant. But because KSP organizes them separately from “Engines” under Command and Control, I'd suggest keeping all RCS info in one place in the Reaction Control System article and just linking to it under a heading in this article.

Jet engines are reaction engines, but not rocket engines. Obviously, they should stay in their own article.

We could still have a Reaction engine article, but it would logically have to list rocket engines, jet engines, and I'd suggest listing RCS engines as a separate sub-category of rocket engines. --Brendan (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (CST)

Why do you want to split it? All reaction engines work very similar and there is no difference between ion engines and rocket engines (excluding RCS thrusters). The only odd balls are RCS thrusters (as they are not throttable but apart from that work like the other engines) and jet engines (as they have a thrust curve which affects their thrust in a not obvious pattern, as the I_sp and fuel flow don't change accordingly). I'm not sure why we need to split it just because they are in separate sections of the VAB part list, which also changed the last times. — xZise [talk] 07:55, 3 March 2015 (CST)

Not splitting so much as moving. The current article begins with a factually wrong statement "A reaction engine is an engine that generates thrust solely through the use of onboard propellant." This describes rocket engines (SRBs, liquid fuel, and ion, plus monoprop/RCS) and the contents should, logically, be moved to Rocket engine. Then, the Reaction engine page should be a list of all the reaction engines, i.e. the rocket engines (including RCS in a subheading) and jet engines, and link to their articles. Already, jet engines have their own article, for good reason as you've given. RCS has its own article, owing to being controlled differently, but I would still list them on the Rocket engine page.

So, no splitting. Just moving and listing to correct terms. --Brendan (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2015 (CST)

Ah I was under the impression that a rocket engine has a combustion which wouldn't apply to ion engines (or in theory nitrogen thrusters and the like). Regarding listing them would be fine (as they work physically the same as other rocket engines).

So move reaction engine to rocket engine and engine to reaction engine and remove rover wheels from that new engine article? — xZise [talk] 09:29, 5 March 2015 (CST)

Yes, I think that would be the cleanest way of making the improvements. --Brendan (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (CST)

1/ And why not put a short sequence for the jets? <secondly: by many of the classification (and I agree with them, because by the "wide" definition even the old fashioned air-propeller is r.e. too) it is not reaction engine, just impulse-principled engine>

2/ The ion engine and nuclear motors are not rocket engines).NWM (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2015 (CST)