Talk:Space Shuttle program/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Space Shuttle program. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion

The opening statement about the shuttle being the first spacecraft capable of carrying large payloads to and from orbit is basically NASA shuttle program propaganda.

Parachutes and ablative systems were quite capable of landing large payloads.

Maybe modify to say " ...the shuttle is the first manned spacecraft capable of returning large payloads from orbit in an internal protected environment ..." ???

Perhaps a bit nit picky but some Aerospace professionals I know are pretty saturated with NASA propaganda about the shuttle. It has been holding us back for a couple of decades now in their opinion. user:mirwin

Info on Current shuttle mission?

This isn't a news site or a blog. Why should an encyclopedia entry mention the current mission of a shuttle? The launch after grounding is certainly something one can mention, but it isn't a very big deal in light of the entire history of the shuttle.

Too much page space. Too contemporary.

Agreed. The part about Discovery seems to have just been thrown in there, out of order with everything else. Not only that, but other sections of the article reference the recently finished mission in the future and present tenses. Marked for attention. --128.118.40.76 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've pretty much wiped that section, replaced it with a line saying the program is currently grounded. Perhaps we need a "future" section under "Usage"? Shimgray 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How can it be that the rocket boosters are reusable after falling down? Are parachutes used? - Patrick 13:08 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yep. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/srb/srb.html has details, though in bureacratic fashion they never actually say "we use parachutes". Stan 13:23 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Just a FYI, in that link it does mention that they use parachutes.

"The recovery crew retrieves the SRBs, frustum/ drogue chutes, and main parachutes." - Marshall

This page needs a new title IMHO. Space shuttle is a general term that would also apply to the Soviet Shuttle Buran. Since this article is all about the US space shuttle, perhapse it should be renamed NASA space shuttle or something like that (does it have a real name?), while Space shuttle should deal with shuttles in general and point to the spscific models. -- stewacide

Right from the moment I found this page, I was figuring the sensible thing would be to have this article at Space Shuttle, and a generic shuttle article at space shuttle. On the other hand, there'd be sure to be some links going to the wrong place sooner or later, so perhaps a longer title like that (well, more like NASA Space Shuttle, I think) would be appropriate. -- John Owens 09:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Would NASA space shuttle or NASA Space Shuttle be better? Are there any other possibilities? (United States Space Shuttle looks/sounds weird IMHO). -- stewacide

I don't think it would look quite right to capitalize "Space" but not "shuttle". Both or neither, I would say. -- John Owens 16:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It depends on whether NASA considers "Space Shuttle" the name of the vehicle, or just a descriptive term. I'll look around the NASA web-site and see what I can dig up... -- stewacide

...I went to the NASA website and they can't seem to make up their minds either. Most of the time it seems to be capatailzed, but on some pages (e.g. ) it's not. Also, as far as I can tell it's never once refered to as the NASA space shuttle, but on a few pages (e.g. those compareing it to foreign craft) they call it the United States space shuttle.

I'm leaning towards United States space shuttle, any thoughts? -- stewacide 17:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Space Shuttle program gives ~25,000 in google. I'm thinking about NASA's Space Shuttle program (gives ~1800). -- Rotem Dan 18:43 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like Space Shuttle program too, but I don't know if it's specific enough. Perhapse United States Space Shuttle program would do it? -- stewacide

this gives only 69 in google --Rotem Dan

A "space shuttle" is a type of a reusable spacecraft. But "Space Shuttle [program]" (capitalized) appears to be the name of NASA's program for launching reusable spacecrafts (I think). Shuttle Buran ("snowstorm" in russian) was created in response to NASA's Space Shuttle program -- Rotem Dan 19:12 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So are you suggesting we use Space Shuttle program? I guess that works - I just wish NASA would give their program a less general name. It's like if Ford decided to name their next car "Car" - it's just confusing :) -- stewacide

I am confused myself, I don't know for sure. But Wikipedia has articles about the Viking program, Apollo program, Lunar Orbiter program, Voyager program, Mariner program etc. so I guess Space Shuttle program makes sense in this terminology. -- Rotem Dan 19:42 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've found another name Space Transportation System (gives 9970 google results, see However, this is the name for the international endevour. -- Rotem Dan 19:42 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will find it if we call it that. I'm cool with Space Shuttle program if you are. -- stewacide 15:37 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I updated the information about the shuttle mission naming schemes, but it seems a little long for where it is. Should we move it down to its own section? --Jwolfe 19:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Considering how badly it flopped, maybe it's N something to revive, but it was originally Space Transportation System (STS). Use that? Trekphiler 11:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be nice to have some info on the Shuttle-C, but I can't think of a good way to fit it in. Maybe it should even be in a separate article? --NeuronExMachina 01:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone wrote a stub about the Shuttle-C. I expanded it a little and linked to it from here.--Chairboy 16:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The proper name for the space shuttle is the "Space Transportation System", thus the mission prefixes of "STS". The problem is that no one is aware of the correct name because the STS was sold as a "shuttle to space" or "space shuttle". Here's a few links:

The Russian shuttle is now known as the "Buran", even though that was only supposed to be the name of the first orbiter.

I'm thinking of using the page "space shuttle" as a general term that includes a general definition of a space shuttle. "Space shuttle" should not be redirected to this article as the Soviet-made Buran is also known as a space shuttle. --Andylkl 12:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

" Another factor in the cost benefit analysis was inflation, and in the 1970s this was high enough that the payback from the development had to happen very quickly to see a positive return. Hence, a high launch rate was needed to make the system economically feasible."

I don't think you mean "High inflation". I think you mean, "High interest rates".

I'm not sure how to cite this, but the White House's article on cost/benefit analysis includes the following: "Economic analyses are often most readily accomplished using real or constant-dollar values, i.e., by measuring benefits and costs in units of stable purchasing power. (Such estimates may reflect expected future changes in relative prices, however, where there is a reasonable basis for estimating such changes.)" http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html That is, when c/b is used with inflation-adjusted values, the level of inflation becomes irrelevant. OTOH, high inflation tends to be less predictable, leading perhaps to higher (real) interest rates.

Similarly for, "With budgets being pressed by inflation at home..." Again, I wouldn't bring inflation into the picture. Admittedly, there's some justification for this passage: high inflation can be fought with tighter fiscal policy (i.e. higher taxes or less spending). But budgetary austerity can also occur in other political environments. Also, monetary policy can be used to fight inflation, though this was out of fashion before Volker (appointed in 1979).[M4M 15:00, Aug 10, 2005.]

I am wondering how true this post is. The insenuate te idea originated in Germany and I got curious.

This article seems somewhat editorial to me. I have just made some edits that may help a bit, but we must be sure to word this section as a discussion of others' opinions, not of our own opinions. For example:

"Even simple tasks now require unbelievable amounts of paperwork." Unbelievable by whom? Can we just say "tremendous amounts"? Tremendous compared to what?
"Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the shuttle system is the Air Force participation." Annoying to whom? Can this be replaced by "regrettable" or does this just beg the question "regrettable by whom?"

--Doradus 18:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Tremendous amounts" according to NASA insiders. The joke goes, the stack of paper is as hi as the Shuttle before it's OKd to launch. Trekphiler 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This article needs some cleanup. I have started by reordering the sections in what I think is a more logical order. A side effect of this ordering is that it highlights some sections that are currently lacking in content (like most of the Usage subsections). I held off on other copyediting while reordering the sections, so my "reorder" edit was just that: a reordering only (along with removing some minor HTML markup intended to make things look better with the old ordering). --Doradus 18:36, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am new, so someone add the events of Armageddon (with bruce willis) to the shuttle in fiction section?

Apollo 13 is also missing. . . . -- Juicy 08:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but why would it be there anyway? Shimgray 17:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention of or relevance to Apollo 13 in regards to the shuttle. Armageddon is now listed in the fictional, perhaps this item should be removed from talk.--Chairboy 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a 1984 treaty between France and the US arranging for emergency landings in Hao, Tuamotu archipelago, French Polynesia. The US government could send crews etc. suitable to prepare for emergency landings.

Have crews ever been pre-positioned on Hao? Are they still? David.Monniaux 06:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Polynesia might have been a possible location for a suborbital abort from Canaveral, or possibly for a launch out of Vandenburg. If it was negotiated, I'd like to look more into the circumstances; but the current abort modes are laid out for all to see; and Polynesia is not on that list. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the circumstances, but the treaty was signed. Hao is also listed as a possible emergency landing in this FAQ. David.Monniaux 16:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Source document from NASA is SHUTTLE SYSTEMS DESIGN CRITERIA VOLUME I - SHUTTLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DATABOOK (REVISION B MARCH 16, 1999). The relevant entry for Hao can be seen at (search for "hao atoll"). I am not sure whether this is a maintained document or one that is historic. I have doubts on its currency since it lists RAF Brize Norton and the current designated emergency site is RAF Fairford (see main article). --Silver149 07:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does NASA keep funding this white elephant? It is not reliable, it is not economical, it is not worth it! This STS Space Shuttle should have been cancelled back in 1987. This program has sucked other programs dry like the Halley's Comet Mission in 1985 or the Mars Baseline Mission in 1986. Van Allen called it "The Slaughter of the Innocents"! If we had stayed with the Saturn V rocket, we could have had a Moon Base by now and men exploring Mars! I think we should take these clunkers to the Museums and save our cash! I am mystified why Reagan, Bush, Clinton allowed Congress to blow so much money on this wastrel of a launch system. Recently there was a report saying that the true cost of each shuttle flight was really 1.5 Billion a launch! Last year, Dubya announced that the Shuttle will be retired in 2011. Why wait? Just cancel it and start building Saturn V's! Supercool Dude 04:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you've had misunderstood that this is not a general forum. In fact, it refers to the article's content. Sorry to tell you - Bye Scriberius 23:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

If we get rid of space shuttles and settle with only spaceships designed to go past orbit from Earth, we won't be able to take advantage of space stations. It would be more economical in the long term to temporarily stop building larger ships and build a spaceship factory in orbit. That way, they could be made out of lighter materials and they wouldn't have to break free of Earth's gravity.

Here is a NASA link for the NON SECRET Military Space Shuttle http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Shuttlebib/ch11.html

I think it will be impossible to find an official source for the TOP SECRET Space Shuttle. Here is what I posted before which got deleted. I heard it through the grapevine :

There are rumours about a non-civilian Space Shuttle, which was in use during cold war era until the middle of the first Clinton legislature. There are also rumours about the secret spaceship being back on duty with newest technologies on board, since the second legislature of US-President George W. Bush.

This is, to put it mildly, pretty damn nonsensical - that link's part of a bibliography on the development of the Shuttle (in which military input played a major role) and certainly not a source for anything. There is no plausible basis for any rumours about a secret militarised Shuttle - it simply could not have been kept secret and operational at the same time in the US - and more to the point, there are hardly even any rumours!

It's not encyclopedic material; had these rumours reached common currency, perhaps, or had they been sourced or debated. But this isn't the place to dump any random bit of cruft that someone mumbled about on Slashdot one day. Shimgray 13:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"random bit of cruft"?! It was on "West Wing"! (OK, Aaron was probably sucking mushrooms at the time, but...) Trekphiler 11:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

This article has been linked to by a Slashdot article, along with the Crew Exploration Vehicle article. -Eisnel 23:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the veracity of our section on abort modes. NASA has some abort mode information of their own, which doesn't appear to match what we have. For instance, the NASA document makes no mention of an "east coast abort landing". --Doradus July 2, 2005 04:24 (UTC)

You are referring to a significantly out of date document. Please refer to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/TALSites.pdf and for detail http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/113029main_AscentChecklist_114_Final_RevA.pdf section 2 - specifically FB 2-14 and FB 2-16. -- User:Silver149 July 4, 2005 08.05 (UTC)

This might be obvious, but why don't the space shuttles have N-numbers? SpaceShipOne has one, and I know NASA is bureaucratically special, but this occurred to me recently and I can't seem to find an answer anywhere. -- iluvcapra 9:30 AM PDT July 26, 2005

It's not obvious, good question. The Shuttles are classified as Spacecraft, and consequently not regulated by the FAA. Additionally, if you were to stretch the point, they can just say 'It's a government aircraft, no N-Number required', but the first answer is nicer. SpaceShipOne has an N-number, btw, but it's classified as an experimental aircraft. - Chairboy 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks chairboy, good point; military aircraft possess no N-Number, nor does Air Force One. But alot of NASA aircraft do.

I'm no FAA weenie, but I think Air Force One technically does: SAM26000 (or is it 28000 now?). I'd guess "spacecraft" is why not on STS; she's not technically operating in civil airspace. Other NASA birds're civil, hence N registry (for USA, if you didn't know). Trekphiler 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there a lot of that going on in this article?

Please sign your messages with ~~~~ (and consider getting a login while you're at it. Do you have some specific areas that you think should be edited down? It would definately be more helpful if you could give us a target. There is, after all, a lot going on with the shuttle... - Chairboy 14:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We do have an article for the Space Shuttle Discovery, and in light of this I would really like know why all the information pertaining to Discovery's current mission is on this page instead of the Discovery proper page. TomStar81 07:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For that, it should really be on STS-114, the page for the actual mission... Shimgray 12:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it should not be on this page, there are other pages more suited for it. TomStar81 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the duration statistics for Discovery be updated as the STS-114 mission lasted over 13 days where the previous record for Discovery was 12.91 days? Mbisanz 03:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the plume shadow image with a higher resolution version that I obtained from this NASA page. I adjusted the levels and contrast on the NASA original a bit, but have I gone too far? -- Balster neb 08:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A beautiful picture. Your editing looks great, does not appear to introduce or suggest anything false. - Chairboy 14:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

68.21.127.246 modified the article to say that the HP-65 was the first programmable calc used on the shuttle. After a quick search I found many references stating the contrary - that the HP-41 was indeed the first calc used on the shuttle. So I reverted their edit. --Dan East 03:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I am so far not able to locate the name of command module and when it is used and its construction features. Similarly on the first recovery test with an austronat. Neither I have seen any details on Russian trial of recovery with two dogs.' Can somebody give these details.

--Dore chakravarty 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I just changed some text that asserted the shuttle was the first partially reusable spacecraft. I qualified it to say "orbital spacecraft" to account for the X-15. Putting a note here in case anyone wants to challenge me to a FIGHT TO THE DEATH on the matter. Bleaargh! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

En garde! It's a myth. The Mercury spacecraft were capable of being reused, just weren't. I'm guessing the "reusable" had something to do with N using expendable boosters (tho the SRBs seem a bit expendable to me...). Trekphiler 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I read something about there being three sets of engines on the Space Shuttle orbiter. They are the 3 main engines, the 2 orbital maneuvering system engines and 44 "thrusters" or reaction control jets. I have not noticed any page about the reaction control jets so it would be nice if someone made one. Also it would be nice if there was a page on the Space Shuttle orbiter.

I think that all space programs may restart using a CREWLESS (old) Space Shuttle.

And, with a crewless Shuttle, also the new lunar missions can be ready to start in HALF TIME and at HALF COST.

I expose the crewless Shuttle at http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html

The crewless Shuttle is better than the (theoric) Shuttle-C because it is not "automated" but remote-controlled and REUSABLE up to 200 TIMES (total flight for the three Shuttles) while the Shuttle-C burns in atmosphere after each mission.

The "my idea" part is a good reason to avoid integrating any of this into the main article, see WP:NOR. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This section repeats several often heard statements about development and operational cost. Unfortunately these are apparently wrong, according to testimony given at the Columbia Accident Investigation Board hearings. In those hearings shuttle program manager Bob Thompson testified that ultimate development and operational costs were very close to the earliest official projections. You can read a verbatim transcript here:

He also discusses the myth that the Air Force "forced" certain shuttle requirements on NASA.

Also, this statement seems misleading: "One reason behind this apparent failure appears to be inflation...This magnified the development costs of the Shuttle."

Inflation does not increase actual costs; the number simply increases. It's not like gas prices going up. You don't judge the accuracy of a budgetary projection based on inflation (or deflation). It's true many people perceive inflation as increasing actual costs, but the article should be about what IS, not about what people believe. Joema 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This statement: "The original silica-based ceramic tiles need to be removed for inspection for damage after every flight" is totally wrong. The tiles are not removed after each flight. Joema 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, feel free to fix it yourself next time you see something like that! :) I have repaired the text in question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to my above suggestion about revising the "Costs" section, numerous areas in the history and other sections should probably be revised. The article repeats many "traditional wisdom" items about the shuttle, but in many cases these are wrong, or inconsistent with authoritative statements. I'll be happy to make these changes, but they're sufficiently extensive it's better to discuss first.

Examples:

Wikipedia: "NASA...in desperation...went to the Air Force...demanding a large increase in capability to allow for launching their projected spy satellites...land at the launch site (unlike NASA), the spacecraft would also require the ability to maneuver significantly...the Air Force-imposed capabilities that most seriously hobbled the Shuttle system have never been used."

Shuttle program manager Bob Thompson specifically said this is a myth -- it wasn't forced on NASA by the Air Force. Thompson: "NASA did not put cross range in the vehicle because the Air Force forced us to, NASA did it because it was the right way to build the vehicle...We wanted cross range for abort capability during launch...requirements for the shuttle were driven 99 percent by what we wanted to do to support the space station. It also happened to give the Air Force the kind of payload volume, the kind of capability they wanted"

Wikipedia: "a high launch rate was needed to make the system economically feasible...roughly one or two a week"

This conflicts with Thompson's statement: "Hell, anyone reasonably knew you weren't going to fly 50 times a year...We never thought you'd ever get above 10 or 12 flights a year."

Wikipedia: "The project was already to take longer than originally anticipated due to the year-to-year funding caps."

This conflicts with Thompsons's statement: "In Dec 1971...that letter said...we'll probably fly it in early 1981. That was in the document.'

References:

Wikipedia: "Decisions to cut short-term development costs have resulted in a continued high-cost maintenance schedule."

The biggest reduction in development cost was eliminating the reusable flyback booster. It's very unlikely that increased maintenance, and in fact Thompson says pressing ahead with the flyback booster (even if funding was available) would have probably doomed the entire program. If this means reusable liquid fuel strap-on booster, that would increase, not decrease maintenance. It's unclear what short-term development costs were eliminated that resulted in high cost maintenance, or what the basis of that statement is.

Wikipedia: "Even simple changes require significant amounts of documentation. This paperwork results from the fact that, unlike current expendable launch vehicles, the Space Shuttle is manned and has no escape systems mode for most of the flight regime"

This conclusion isn't supported by other man-rated boosters. Apollo/Saturn had all-aspect abort, yet every tiny item in Apollo required meticulous documentation. It was a drag on development and greatly increased cost. Biographies by many principles including Von Braun, Tom Kelly (head of LM development), etc. mentioned this.

Wikipedia: "no abort modes...many pieces of hardware simply must function perfectly and so must be carefully inspected before each flight. The result is a massively inflated labor cost, with around 25,000 workers in Shuttle operations and labor costs of about $1 billon per year."

The Saturn V (which had all aspect abort) required 20,416 workers at NASA/Marshall alone. There were hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide. It's true many were production, not operational, but the expendable nature of the vehicle means production IS essentially operations. Despite having all aspect abort, the vehicle required huge resources for inspection and documentation.

I'm not saying the article positively must be changed to only reflect the above, but the current wording apparently comes from "conventional wisdom" sources of unknown veracity. By contrast the above CAIB testimony is by people directly involved with the program, and in many cases corroborated by paperwork dating from that period.

I'll be happy to reword a version incorporating these changes and submit it for review. Just let me know where to put it. Joema 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How long is the program? The link to this page says 33 years. The first line if the article says 1981 to 2011 (30 years). Two paragraphs later, the article states the program started in the 1960s (50+ years). Please pick one program length and stick twith it.

=======

The link for reference number 3

Brooks, Dawn The Names of the Space Shuttle Orbiters. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accessed July 26, 2006.

is no longer functional: . Could someone fix the link or remove the reference? Njerseyguy (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The data here is inconsistent with other data. For instance: The longest shuttle mission is attributed to Columbia in 1996 (according to this page and the STS80 page) however, the Columbia was destroyed in 1986. As such, the data in this article needs be verified by someone very knowledgable to ensure that the data is accurate in this and related articles. 199.244.214.30 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The data is correct. The "longest mission" statement is verbatim from NASA: . You're mistaken, Columbia was not destroyed in 1986. Joema 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Columbia was destroyed in 2003. Challenger was destroyed in 1986. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The { { shuttle_stats } } table has an incorrect date for the first launch. The first launch was April 12, 1981. The table lists "Apr 13". The source of the data of the table is someplace separate from the article and I cannot find where to edit it. Can someone who does know please fix it? --Charles Oppermann (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This user is a Space Shuttle fan.

Is the 72-hour tab "valid"? By that, do you mean, "accurate"? Of course it is. But the article is about the space shuttle program, not about the December 2006 mission. This tag is absolutely unnecessary, it adds nothing of value to the article, and contributes to tag litter.

By this logic, there should be a current events tag on George W. Bush, since "details may change rapidly as events progress". And hey, Christmas is just around the corner. The article on Christmas has a section on the "Economics of Christmas". Now this year's shopping season may progress in different ways than expected. Should there therefore be a "Current Events" tag on the article on Christmas?

No, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (thank goodness), and we can update it at will. But neither is it a newspaper. Even if something does get updated during this launch, it does not necessitate this tag. Suppose we learn something new about the shuttle program during the launch. Then update it. But there is no reason to suppose that this article is going to change in any substantive, unexpected way over the course of this next mission. Unschool 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, this issue is being discussed at Talk:Space Shuttle --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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 proposal was withdrawn by nominator

Strong oppose per earlier discussion --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per GW Simulations. I do see other Shuttle-related article shuffling that needs to be done, but this isn't it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unschool has removed his nomination (see Space Shuttle), so I am closing the discussion. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

The second paragraph says "The Shuttle is the only winged manned spacecraft to achieve orbit and land, and the only reusable space vehicle that has ever made multiple flights into orbit." I'm not sure if this is in error or not, SpaceShip One acheived orbit twice within 2 weeks. I leave it to someone who knows for sure.

SpaceShipOne was only capable for sub-orbital flights. Not ones that go into orbit around the Earth. Andy120290 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the article it says:

"This article is about the NASA Space Shuttle program. For the shuttle itself, see Space Shuttle. For information on the Soviet space shuttle program, see the article Buran program"

Why does it have statistics about the Buran in the same chart as the Enterprise? Jons63 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That needs to get changed. I would put Enterprise in with the other shuttles, and delete Buran from this article. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Buran was nothing more than a publicity stunt - to mention it is an insult to Shuttle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.139 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Buran was no more a publicity stunt than the US shuttle was. It only flew once because the government that supported it disintegrated before it could fly again, and the successor governments were too poor to fund the enormously expensive project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talk • contribs) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK there's more discussing on extending the shuttle programme beyond 2010, that's what I figured watching a press conference (on air during writing - maybe recorded?) about the upcoming shuttle flight (STS-126). check this: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/10/shuttle-extension-white-paper/, http://www.space.com/news/080829-nasa-shuttle-extension.html, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-09-23-obama-nasa-shuttle_N.htm --62.214.194.122 (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How did you get those 60 M$ incremental costs ? Looks like a '0' is missing at the end ... Just External Tank would be 50 M$ (http://aeromaster.tripod.com/paper1.htm) then SSME refurbishing, SRB retrieval and refurbishing, tiles, operational costs of infrastructure and so on. 60 M$ just for a fuel ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.9.141 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Operational cost estimate is about $5 000 000 000 per year. http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewnews.rss.html?id=1342 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.9.141 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the current Table of Flight Statistics on this page (as at 3 Sept 2009) Atlantis (270+ days) has been on orbit approximately 4 days more than Endeavour (266+ days). In terms of the number of orbits, the difference between the two shuttles is 390 orbits (in favor of Atlantis). My question is: Normally a shuttle takes about 90 minutes to make a single orbit and that makes 16 orbits per single day. Hence, would not the difference should be 16*4 ~ 64 orbits? instead of 390 ?. Can some one please explain the big disparity between the days and the orbits of the two shuttles ?

152.226.7.204 (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article entitled "Space Transportation System" is unfortunately inaccurate and reads like an unsubstantiated essay.

That article is not supported by the references. In addition, straight from the horse's mouth, which would be NASA's Kennedy space center, the Space Trasnportation System (STS) is as follows:

"NASA coordinates and manages the Space Transportation System (NASA's name for the overall Shuttle program), including intergovernmental agency requirements and international and joint projects. NASA also oversees the launch and space flight requirements for civilian and commercial use.."

There is nothing about the international space station that is part of this program. That is apparently another program. Nor is there anything about how the "Space Race wound down and the Vietnam War began to take precedence in the minds of U.S. citizens"... that part of the article reads like an usubstantiated essay.

The reference discusses the space shuttle system, comprised of four elements, which makes up at least part of the STS. Then Space shuttle requirements are discussed, then background and status, etc., etc. Some hunting around through these links gets in to some fine detail, but it is still all about the shuttle. This is all related to the Space shuttle, and unfortunately it is probably indistinguishable from the articles entitled "Space Shuttle" and Space Shuttle program".

I apologize but based on this, I am making that page a redirect to the article entitled "Space Shuttle program"----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Space Shuttle program. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The article says "NASA originally planned to make the Hubble a Smithsonian museum display, but decided to keep it in space until a successor is launched." Was there a plan to bring the Hubble Telescope back to Earth on the Shuttle? Can it do that? Also, the two links that are references at the end of the sentence don't say anything about Hubble. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

STS-144. The reason the retrieval mission did not go ahead was probably due to payload bay space, the fourth servicing mission, and ISS mission needs. Columbia was the only orbiter to still have its internal airlock to be able to carry payloads Hubble-size (that is why she deployed Chandra even though Chandra's mass warranted Endeavour or Atlantis). When STS-118 was allocated to Columbia (her next flight after -107), that meant the internal airlock had to come out to install the ODS, which meant that Hubble retrieval was not possible due to payload bay space. Then the fourth servicing mission went ahead instead of retrieval. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I was wondering if it was possible to bring Hubble back down, then it would have been better to bring it down, fix the mirror on the ground, and put it back up. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does the retirement section talk about the Hubble? Someone was copying and pasting without reading maybe? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.15.229 (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I should have done this before.... I propose moving the Columbia & Challenger pages from "disaster" to "accident". Comment here. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Arjuna (talk)

Space Shuttle program (5 votes, stays until August 12, 2011) is the US collaboration for August 2011

Nominated 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by August 12, 2011 (minimum 3 votes per month)

Support:

Oldiesmann (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
JayJasper (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
(Iuio (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
Dusty777 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

With the shuttle program coming to an end, there's a lot that could be done with this article (details about the final missions and where the shuttles will go, future of the space program, etc.) Oldiesmann (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, good choice.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Could also be good if folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy got involved too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the historic nature of the United States having for the first time since it sent Freedom 7 into space, not having an active manned space program; with some critics saying it means that the Russians (the successor, therefore continuing in a way the lineage, of the Soviet space program) ultimately won the Space Race, this would make a great article to work on. Furthermore, it is less partisan than say working on the Democrat(ic) Party article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

First job would be to look at comprehensiveness - is this article missing anything? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should have more detail about the actual program. Compare with the featured article Shuttle–Mir Program - that article is dominated by a "Timeline" section; I would think this article should have a similar structure. Details of the timeline are currently split between the "Program history" section, and the "Status" section; with most technicalities relegated to the List of space shuttle missions (which is unsatisfactory). So perhaps the way forward, seeing as the program is over, is to merge the two sections "Program history" and "Status" into a unified "Timeline" section, which could then be further organized and expanded. Mlm42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is anything actually being done on this article? Oldiesmann (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the word "programm" means a list of steps or some kind of plan. As far as I can see Space shuttle launches were not covered by the One Plan. Launches have different purport, program Mir - Shuttle was unthinkable at the beggining of the Shuttle era. Is using of the word "program" correct in this case? Dodonov (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. It's also used to cover a series of related operations: Apollo program, frex. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Before the Apollo XI moon landing in 1969, NASA began early studies of space shuttle designs.

Fragment If the marked words are an incomplete thought, consider developing this thought into a complete sentence by adding a subject or a verb or combining this text with another sentence.--46.217.128.172 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a complete sentence already. Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle program → Space Shuttle Program – That's how it's formatted in the header of the article. – DNA Ligase IV (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That rationale is weak for two reasons: 1) It would be easy to change the header of the article to match the current title, 2) The infobox at the top of the article matches the current title. This should be discussed as an ordinary move request before being moved. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done Since there's no issue with WP:COMMONNAME, the acid test here is whether it's a proper noun. Please discuss on the article's talk page. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose - NASA seem to use "program" and "Program" interchangeably. The nominator's rationale are not sufficiently convincing to justify a move so I would recommend sticking with the current title --W. D. Graham 00:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per MOS:CAPS and complete lack of a rationale based in guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Space Shuttle program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060614151658/http://www.hq.nasa.gov:80/osf/shuttle/orbiters.html to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/shuttle/orbiters.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

=======

Space Shuttle program (5 votes, stays until August 12, 2011) is the US collaboration for August 2011

=======

Space Shuttle program (5 votes, stays until August 12, 2011) is the US collaboration for August 2011

Old text

Current Discovery Mission?

SRB reusability

Title of article

Shuttle-C

Proper name

Space shuttles generally

History

NPOV in "The Shuttle in retrospect"

Reordering of sections

Shuttle in Fiction

Emergency landings in French Polynesia

What A Waste!

Military Space Shuttle &amp; TOP SECRET Military Space Shuttle

Slashdotted

Abort modes

A Question: Why no N-number?

Repetitiveness?

Discovery

Statistics

High-res plume shadow photo

HP 41

First reusable spacecraft

Three sets of engines

The CREWLESS (old) Space Shuttle

Costs section possibly needs revising

Tile statement wrong

Suggest various changes

Errors/Issues

Shuttle user box

Current Event Tags

Merger

Reusable Spacecraft

Buran?

shuttle extension study

Shuttle budget

Flight Statistics

Space Transportation System

External links modified

Hubble?

Wreck it

Game plan

Just to clarify

Revising

Requested move 08 December 2014

External links modified

Military Space Shuttle & TOP SECRET Military Space Shuttle