Talk:Space Shuttle/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Space Shuttle. 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

Right Margin Total Dollar Amount?

Would it make sense to add data in the top right margin sidebar that lists total dollars spent on the Shuttle? Similar to the way we list revenue and other dollar-related data for major corporations (e.g., Microsoft: "Revenue US$ 69.94 billion [2011]"). That way, readers could use Wikipedia to study areas of the economy that are arguably less or more beneficial for mankind. Your thoughts? SK (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

this probably goes somewhere in one of the articles.

It's not used on en wiki yet Penyulap ☏ 04:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Payload capacity

I've noticed that the maximum payload capacity appears out of date. The 55,250 lb weight was what was set for STS post-Challenger because of the huge weight increases incurred due to all the SRB, Orbiter, and ET safety-related modifications. With the advent of the AL-LI super lightweight ET, 7,500 lbs was added back in performance. This is what allowed the very heavy-weight Columbia to carry the 50,000 lb plus Chandra/AXAF to orbit on STS-93. The then existing flight-capable orbiters also received upgrades that reduced their weight as well by varying degrees, even Columbia after her last OMDP.

Cargo bay dimensions?

How about including the dimensions of the cargo bay? I have a source of early (1969-1970) study specs calling for 15 ft. diameter by 60 ft. long. Is this what was finally built? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Space Shuttle tile image

Hi All

I just uploaded this image, think it may be of use here but don't know where

Thanks --Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Booster Stage the 0th Stage?

The three stages of the Shuttle (boosters and main engines, main engines alone and orbiter OME engines) are called the 0th, 1st and 2nd. Should be changed to 1st, 2nd and 3rd. 89.12.69.224 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that is standard nomenclature; strap-on boosters which fire in parallel with main engines are considered "stage 0"; see Titan IIIC. That is programmed into the standard Template:Infobox rocket. I wold maintain that what is actually incorrect, given the definition of a rocket stage, is that the OMS doesn't actually count as a second stage (despite the fact it fires in serial to achieve orbit), because it is just as much a part of the Shuttle orbiter as the main engines are, and the latter do not detach and fall away from it. The Shuttle as built did not fit neatly into the traditional definition of a multistage rocket. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Locked - Discuss

There is currently an edit-war going on whether or not to use the wording "lost" or "destroyed" in reference to the [i]Challenger[/i] and [i]Columbia[/i] arguments. As this has gone on for four days batting back and forth without any discussion outside of edit summaries, I have full-protected the article for 72 hours. During this time, WP:DISCUSSION should take place here to determine WP:CONSENSUS on which wording to use, which can be placed into the article when the full protection expires. Please remember WP:CIVIL and that if edit-warring resumes once the protectin expires, blocks for edit warring will likely follow - WP:3RR is a privilege but not a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this technically go back to the original 'lost' version before being locked? Sorry editors - I wasn't counting the reversions. Usually I can count to 3 and back off before this sort of thing happens. Here is my position - The use of the term 'lost' is an archaic maritime use for a destroyed vessel that can too easily be misinterpreted to mean that no-one knows where it is. Despite the prevalence in science fiction of maritime naval usages for spacecraft, Space Shuttle crews nearly all have Air Force insignia and ranks, so the use of the term 'lost' to describe a Space Shuttle that everyone saw explode is euphemistic and idiomatic at best - both of which are no-nos according to the MOS. I changed to 'destroyed' and was quite surprised to see that change so rigorously resisted, especially when the reasoning forthcoming for such resistance kept shifting. I looked at alternates but still think 'destroyed in mission accidents' is best. It is simple and accurate, almost impossible to misinterpret, unlike 'lost.' Mdw0 (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The two main versions of the text have been, "Challenger and Columbia were lost in mission accidents" and "Challenger and Columbia were destroyed in mission accidents". With the other text in the sentence, there's no real way to misinterpret these. Lost is a common term in aviation and is not uncommon overall. So 'lost' is fine. Since meaning is clear, either wording choice is OK to me. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm with "Mdw0", even if their logic regarding the originating service of the crews is flawed. Both terms may be fine, but only one can be best, and that's the one less likely to be misinterpreted and relies less on idiom or jargon. I think this is pretty clear and objective. If I were writing a book, I'd use "lost" for flavor, but this is an encyclopedia, so a more literally accurate and descriptive term is called for. I actually thought of this comparison when I noticed the wording of the crews having "died" rather than being "lost", which might be more common and expected in a news story. "Died" (EDIT: or better yet: "killed") and "destroyed" are more accurate and therefore more appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if they don't give you a warm-fuzzy. Ezriilc (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with Fnlayson: either term is fine. They mean the same thing. Apparently Mdw0 thinks that the Air Force doesn't use the term, but I assure you that when they talk about an incident involving loss of aircraft, they don't mean that the pilot forgot where he parked it. This is common usage.

With that said, however, since both terms do say the same thing, we might as well go with "destroyed": it will satisfy the people who are confused by the word "lost," and doesn't change the meaning of the article. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how it was destroyed and not "lost" I think that "destroyed" should be used. It's hardly going to be found down the back of the sofa, is it? Torqueing (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

According to NASA, a primary source, the term is lost: http://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Introduction.html 66.35.41.1 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

But NASA is talking about the crew on that page, not the vehicle. While I think the sofa argument is unlikely to find many adherents, I'm with Torqueing and others. There is good evidence that the vehicle was destroyed; 'lost' may be a euphemism more acceptable to those whose colleagues, friends and relatives have been killed in service, but seems capable of complete misinterpretation. 'Destroyed' is therefore a more accurate and relevant term here, I feel. Navy/Air Force common usage seems irrelevant to me: this page is for everyone who reads English (some as a second or subsequent language), not just people who know 'correct' service jargon. Worse still, 'lost' could be an invitation to conspiracy theorists who think the US Government may be covering up abduction by aliens or something! (Stranger theories are out there...) Tagilbert (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The NASA page actually refers to both the shuttle and crew. The sentence says "The orbiter and its seven crewmembers ... were lost". -Fnlayson (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If I may chip in my two cents despite being the originally protecting admin - now that that has expired - I'd support "lost" as the phrasing here. While it could seem "euphamistic", it's also the commonly used term for this sort of thing. For instance, a ship sunk is referred to as "lost at the battle of X", aircraft use the same terminology, and so do spacecraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Lost is not the commonly used term. If a car or train is destroyed in an accident it is not lost. It is used commonly only in the services. It is not commonly used outside of this limited scope. If anything, Wikipedia's preference for the commonly used term rules against lost.Mdw0 (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: "lost" is indeed the commonly-used term, and I've never heard of anybody misunderstanding the word in this context. The shuttle is not a car or a train. But even in that context, when your insurance company declares your car a total loss, it doesn't mean that the car was misplaced. Geoffrey.landis (talk)

The mention of context is appropriate. Context matters. This context is not a technical study, or military documentation, or an industrial pamphlet. It is much broader than that. A Wikipedia article must assume a lay reader, especially in the opening section. The normal, most common use of 'lost' implies no-one knows where it is. It does not matter than a less common, more technical definition of 'lost' is often used in a totally different, more limited context, because that context does not apply here. Who are we writing for?Mdw0 (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigh ... I was in the "lost" camp and was all set to argue in favor of it; I believe at least 99% of native English speakers are well familiar with the idiomatic meaning, and it would have been my choice. But then I read WP:IDIOM: "Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Even though "lost" doesn't appear on the list of idioms referenced on the IDIOM entry, I would have to say that the spirit of the MOS guideline says we should avoid it, and give the point to Mdw0. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's "mother's tongue" is not English, let me add my 2 cents: I would highly recommend using literal language and going for "destroyed". "Lost" might be common usage in the space industry, but this is not a space industry wiki. And this article is not about the language of the space industry (such an article would be an interesting addition to this wiki), but this article should describe the Space Shuttle to both average and expert wiki-readers. I would suspect that "lost" can possibly imply for the majority of readers that the craft was actually lost, as in "left Earth orbit, can't be located, and so on". Tony Mach (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Technospeak needs to be explained for the uninitiated

"In the unlikely case that two out of four computers simultaneously failed (a two-two split), one group was to be picked at random." Huh ? group ? picked at random ? I'm guessing that the functions performed by the lost two computer were reassigned to the remaining two, at random rather than a predefined cascade e.g. 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4; 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 1 etc, but whatever it was needs to be explained unambiguously in layman's terms.Rcbutcher (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have re-worded the paragraph. Does this explain it in a way that is understandable?

Done Makyen (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the wording now makes sense to me. I understand it means that if two computers output x and two output y, either x or y would be chosen at random. Correct ? Were computers in fact "voted out" of the system permanently after a single anomaly, or was the anomaly output for that single event simply voted out and the computer allowed to continue ? This would make more sense, and perhaps allowing three strikes rather than one before kicking a particular computer out would to me be more reasonable. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

q1: Yes, that is correct.

I do not know enough about the Space Shuttle's computer system to speak authoritatively on your second question. However, I can speak from my understanding. I would expect that computers were voted out permanently after a single anomaly, until a human did something to reset/test the system. All four of these computers were doing exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. They are not people. What they are doing is extremely deterministic, very simple code (compared to "normal" desktop/laptop software). If one is getting a different result from the other three then something is significantly wrong with it. Consider, if you had 4 desktop calculators into which you entered exactly the same 4 + 4 =, then three of them showed 8 and one showed 7. Lives depend on this. Why would you trust the one that produced 7 again until such time as someone reset and tested it?

Keep in mind that the next operation will normally depend on the previous result (the correct answer to which is not back-loaded into the failing computer). You know that one of the computers has a problem. If you have not permanently removed it, the computer might be correct some of the time, or happen to produce the same wrong answer as a second failing computer. If the first was not permanently removed, and if it produced the same wrong answer as a second failing computer then the result would be the need to guess as to which group of two is correct. You would be guessing, and might be wrong, when you could have known you were choosing the correct 2 answers out of 3. It is much better to disable the computer that produced the anomalous result until it is reset/tested by a human.

One of the reasons for this type of system was the possibility of errors occurring due to a high energy particle happening to hit exactly right within one of the computers to cause a transient error. The system was intended to make calculations in real-time. There is no time for the computers to reset themselves, run a diagnostic to determine that the error was a transient occurrence, and then perform the calculation again. I would be surprised if there was not a way for the astronauts to perform a reset and diagnostic at a time of their choosing, if it was needed. It just can't happen in the middle of critical flight operations when any delay could ruin everyone's day. Makyen (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. The article now clearly reflects this. A complete separate article on the Shuttle computer systems would be really good if somebody was brave enough to write it ! Rcbutcher (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Shuttle vs. Saturn V observer footprint

I remember watching the last few Saturn V launches (on a B&W CRT television screen) from my classroom in Davie, FL. The teacher always rushed us out to attempt to observe the launches. We were never able to observe these launches in person, AFAIK.

The Shuttle was a different story, as *most* of the launches were visible from SW. Broward county, and as far South as Miami Beach (when I lived there), if the atmospheric conditions were correct. I was able to observe many of the evening (and even afternoon) shuttle launches from my driveway in Weston (Ft. Lauderdale/W. Broward), and even as far south as Miami.

What was the difference here? Both crafts used the same fuel, and the Saturn V was more powerful, but the shuttle was seemingly more easily observable from ~275+ miles away). Was it the shuttle SRB's vs. the Saturn V's J-2 engines? Must have been?

Anyhow, both were an absolutely awesome sight and will be sorely missed! A man-made machine observed ~250+ miles away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.88.16 (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There might be various explanations why you couldn't see the Saturn V launches but I think the most important factor is simply the weather.

How long did it take you to go outside after you watched the launch on TV? Maybe you were too slow. 217.224.40.121 (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A possible explanation might be that, for the first 2½ minutes the Saturn V first stage burned kerosene-based RP, while the Shuttle main engines burned hydrogen, which probably makes a much brighter "flame". (The Saturn V also burned hydrogen, but only in its upper stages.) I doubt the SRB's would have been brighter than either the mighty F-1s or the J-2s. BTW: the last Moon shot, Apollo 17, was launched in the dark of night (half hour after midnight). You might have been able to see that, if you were able to stay up. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible flame. After SRB sep you could barely tell the engines were still running. The F-1 burned kerosene and produced a bright yellow flame and a rather faint trail of blackish soot. OTOH the Shuttle's SRBs produced 45km high arcs of bright white aluminum oxide exhaust, kind of hard to miss. A(Ch) 18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

you've hit it right on the head - the high visibility of shuttle (and titan iii, etc.) launches is the solid rocket plumes - it is a combination of the aluminum oxide and the hcl from the solid propellant combustion (the latter promotes water condensation). indeed back in the vietnam war, many american combat aircraft were shot down because the white plumes from their missile firings gave north vietnamese pilots a easy to follow pointer back to the launching aircraft. the u.s. military quickly developed reduced and min smoke propellants that took the aluminum powder out. the aluminum powder serves two functions - increasing the energy content of the propellant and damping acoustic oscillations inside the rocket motor (they are after all basically just like organ pipe tubes).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 13:28, May 12, 2016‎ (UTC)

Shuttle Engine Specs

Everywhere you look the shuttle has completely different specs for thrust. NASA: SL 375k lbs; VAC 470k lbs ^[1] Space Shuttle Page: SL 394k lbs; no VAC stats ^[2] Space Shuttle Main Engine Page: SL 418k lbs; VAC 512k lbs ^[3] Can anyone confirm which numbers are correct so all of the pages can have accurate data?Wllm t (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The NASA page lists the thrust at 100% RPL (only used for the first few flights), the Space Shuttle page lists the thrust at 104 or 104.5% RPL (actual power level used for nearly all launches), the SSME page lists thrust at 109% RPL (certified for abort modes only) A(Ch) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Space Shuttle is" vs. "was"

I think the IP user who made this tense change is correct. For reference, consider the lead sentence of Spirit of St. Louis:

The Spirit of St. Louis (Registration: N-X-211) is the custom-built, single engine, single-seat monoplane that was flown solo by Charles Lindbergh on May 20–21, 1927, [... etc.] JustinTime55 (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence was already done this way "The Space Shuttle is a partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft that was operated by..." -Fnlayson (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; I didn't mean to imply I thought his edit was sufficient as it stood; thanks for clarifying it. I just thought the point should be brought out here. The Lindbergh plane article sets the precedent for the idea that a not-currently-operational craft still exists. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's good and I agree. I was mainly replying to the original post that seemed to have missed the "was operated" change I made. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Spirit of St. Louis example is a sensible precedent - this is talking about a single individual aircraft - if we were in this article talking about an individual space shuttle and not all of them then using 'is' would, I believe, be universally acceptable. I have looked at a number of historic (retired) aircraft articles in wikipedia and these tend to use 'was' even when some examples are still flying. It appears to be that once enough time has passed and the original use has turned into a museum piece 'was' tends to be used. I suspect time is an issue here. The closest analogue of the Space Shuttle I could think of is Concorde, both this and the Space Shuttle were retired recently, all at the same time, and a limited number of examples built. Plus individual examples of both the shuttle and Concorde were known as 'The' rather than 'A' in normal speak. "I went for a trip on Concorde", "the Astronaut went on the Space Shuttle", I" went to Frankfurt on a 747".

The Concorde article uses 'is' however it does make it absolutely clear that the type is retired - I think a similar qualifier should be used in the space shuttle article. I would also expect that sometime in the future the 'is' will become 'was', and nobody will think the change strange - but I guess we are not at that point yet.Andrewgprout (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Shuttles do still exist - they weren't scuttled. They simply aren't in use any longer (except as museum exhibits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.34.196 (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what the first sentence says (or is meant to say) now. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
They exist, but they are no longer in use as launch system/spacecraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Orbits ?

What are the typical orbits used by the shuttles ? See List of orbits Yug (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a VERY good question. Low Earth Orbit ranges between 160 km and 1200 km! That is a HUGE range. So what have been the perigree and apogee values (averages and records)? I don't think it is adequate that it simply be characterized as LEO. Surely, someone knows this?! Or can find it! FWIW, the ISS is at 380 km and the Shuttle has docked with it.Abitslow (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WHat does the shuttle really cost - cited either 450 million or 1.5 BILLION

Can some one cite the references to each figure i have found? EIther way its a lot more than what Elon Musk charges ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.82.148 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Shuttle cannot fly unmanned

"As the shuttle cannot fly unmanned, each of these improvements has been "tested" on operational flights"

Must be mistaken, unless you can provide verifiable citations .From what I understand the Shuttle is perfectly capable of launching to orbit and returning to earth totally under control of the on board computer. Viralmeme (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is widely known the shuttle cannot fly unmanned. That's why the first mission STS-1 had a crew, despite the great risk. Recently a new contingency capability was added to allow the orbiter to deorbit and land without a crew. This is called Remote Controlled Orbiter (RCO), and is only used if a manned orbiter reaches the ISS but is deemed unsafe for manned operation to return (e.g, orbiter is flyable but damaged). In that case the crew takes refuge in ISS, the RCO hardware is installed on the orbiter, and an unmanned return is attempted. The RCO consists of cables and software which automate tasks previously done by the crew. This includes deploying air data probes, landing gear and drag chute. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/06/rco-saving-a-crippled-discovery/

Seeing as how all that is needed for the shuttle to fly with no one on board is a cable harness and a software tweak, I hope it is clear to everyone that it is not proper to therefore conclude: "That's why the first mission STS-1 had a crew, despite the great risk." This mod could have easily been done for that first mission back in 1981.

The actual problem was that as soon as the shuttle was flown with no one on board, this would have proven that pilots were not necessary. NASA wanted pilots, so the switches were wired to make pilots necessary.

This is similar to what NASA went through during the Apollo days. Remember all the drama with Eagle's landing? All the tension with the fuel remaining calls? And all the training leading up to that point where the crew had the skill to fly that landing? Neil Armstrong even had to eject out of one of those trainers.

...well, there was no such drama with the precursor Surveyor landings. It was all mechanically precise automatic control. No one was on-board to drip a single drop of sweat. Now imagine if Apollo 10, say, had undocked their LM to fly all the way down to the surface with no one inside. And after the landing, the ascent stage could have been remotely commanded to launch off the lunar surface to re-dock with the CSM Charlie Brown. Doing that would surely have detracted from the accomplishment that would follow with Apollo 11. But it's not hard to imagine all the engineers who might have argued for that as a risk reduction step. And they also could have argued for testing the LM life support systems on the lunar surface without risking any human lives. NASA could have landed a couple of chimps onto the Moon. Imagine that...

"One small step for a chimp. One giant leap for chimpkind."

It was embarrassing enough for the Mercury astronauts to follow in the buttprints of the simians. Glenn, the first American to orbit, used to rib Al Shepard for having flown a mere suborbital mission, calling him "the missing link" between primates and humans. So where does that leave our shuttle with this popular notion that it cannot fly without people? The Soviets proved that Buran could be successful as an autonomous mission - no one home. The US shuttle could have done that too, as could have the Lunar Module, as the Gemini's and Mercury's actually did before that. The shuttle program could have saved a huge amount of money by eliminating the pilot positions. It could have saved even more by eliminating the shuttle itself. Probes are FAR cheaper. But if you're going to have a human spaceflight program, it's been decided that it's best to let humans fly the spacecraft. The next time anyone tries to justify human spaceflight with triumphs like Hubble repair, I'd like someone to press them to admit how much cash it would have saved to simply launch a new Hubble. Hubble is basically a spy satellite turned outward, and the NRO doesn't waste money trying to repair any of theirs. If one breaks, they replace it with a brand new one. But the NRO isn't in the business of the spiritual quest that is human spaceflight. It is far more significant to the human story to actually have a person who experienced it, enabling the rest of us to imagine what it might have been like for them.

Who today remembers that Langley was flying pilotless planes well before the Wright Brothers flew? One event was a small step in advancing technology. The other was a giant leap in expanding human consciousness. And the biggest thing that human spaceflight has done in its entire 50 year span of history is to expand our awareness of how our planet is unique in all the universe. At least what we know of it. Does anyone look back to that expansion of awareness as having happened from the images of pilotless lunar orbiter probes? What we look back to is the Big Blue Marble first gazed upon by the crew of Apollo 8 and the Earthrise they saw from behind the Moon. This was the singular event in human evolution where everything changed.

Now I'll pose a challenge to some editor here: Boil the above down to a soundbite for addition to the article to explain to everyone why the space shuttle was "never flown unmanned".--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct, but it would still be a speculative opinion and/or original research. You would need an external source for it stating the same thing, at which point it could be presented as a viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.57.212.12 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument - We had unmanned rockets first and certainly can semd up satellites without personnell in side - so why care either way ?

signed jules r. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.145.82.148 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Space Shuttle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-entry and landing

According to Richard Feynman the landing of the shuttle was always automatic once the landing program was initiated. The astronaut only pressing a button to lower the undercarriage. After the Rogers Commission even this process was automated which caused consternation as the lowering of the undercarriage was what was considered flying (landing) the shuttle. As far as I understand the shuttle was never flown manually during missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.30.29 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Space Shuttle. 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) 15:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Space Shuttle. 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) 17:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Space Shuttle. 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) 09:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Space Shuttle. 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) 06:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifications

Why does only one of the shuttles ('Atlantis') have a technical specification outline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Because these specifications are the same for all the shuttles, and repeating them would be redundant. Also, the specifications are given for Endeavour, not Atlantis. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for feedback on planned improvements

I am intending to improve this article and get it up to GA status. I am hoping for some feedback on my planned improvements, which includes section reorganization.

1. Lead: I plan on trimming down some of the excessive info in the lead section. The first paragraph I intend to leave as-is (minus some wording changes). I want to reduce the excessive details about the launch and orbit sequence in the second paragraph, as that is covered down below. I will leave the third paragraph mostly unchanged, but will reword certain sentences.

2. Overview: This section needs to be too much of a catch-all for info about the shuttle. As much of the described information is included below, such as the development history, launch sequence, landing sequences. I propose removing this section and putting the relevant info and citations in later sections.

3. Early history: I intend to clean this section up, but I will leave it to talk about the political motivations and previous attempts that led to the shuttle.

4. Development (proposed section): Have a new section that describes the development process for the specifications and building of the shuttle

5. Spacecraft (Replacement for "Description" section): Remove the history and development info from the section, and have sub sections that physically describe the orbiter, external tank, and solid rocket boosters. I will have sub-sub sections for the orbiter to describe various components, such as the flight control, payload bay, upgrades, etc. I will close the section with the "Specifications" sub-section already in place.

6. Mission profile: I intend to keep the sub-section headers in this, although I will move the post-landing processing section and include the landing site information in the launch sequence (for abort sites) and landing section (for potential landing sites).

7. Flight history (replacement for some of fleet history). I will include the graphic of shuttle missions, as well as the table of major milestones, and the disasters section. I would like to include a sub section for major mission sets, most notably the deployment and repair of Hubble, and building the ISS.

8. Retirement (new-ish section): Discuss the causes that led to the shuttle's retirement. I will then include where all of the shuttles were transported, as well as additional hardware.

9. Successors and legacy: I plan to remove this section. I think this info is more appropriate for the page on the Space Shuttle program, especially considering that the successor never came to fruition.

10. In popular culture: I would like to clean up this section. I will include as much of the existing information, but will ensure that everything is properly cited. I will remove the sub-section header for the postage stamp release.

This is obviously a major rewrite of the article, and I'm hoping to get some feedback on my plans before embarking in a major rewrite. Looking forward to hearing the Wikipedia community's thoughts on the matter! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Orbit

I understand from the article that the shuttle was designed for low earth orbit missions, but were there any real technical restrictions that would have prevented it from, say, travelling around the moon and back? Like shielding? Just curious, and did'nt find that answered in the article. 93.198.222.97 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (the three large engines on the back of the orbiter) were out of fuel prior to the shuttle even reaching orbit. The Orbital Maneuvering System (the two smaller engines at the top corners of the backside of the shuttle) were what allowed the shuttle to achieve orbit, maneuver, and return. They did not carrying enough fuel for the orbit of the shuttle to be raised to approach the moon; they didn't even have enough for the shuttle to rendezvous with both the ISS and the Hubble Space Telescope in a single mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Changing the "Orbiter add-on" heading

Hi! I am thinking to change the heading of "Orbiter add-on" to something. Because I am related with the term "Orbiter add-on" as the add-ons of Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator. Please help me! Soumya-8974 (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I clarified that section is for cargo bay add ons here. Is that what you wanted? -Fnlayson (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Soumya-8974 (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Overview section removal

I am working to remove the Overview section, by either removing information found later in the article, or merging its content with the appropriate section. With the way it currently stands, it appears to be an extended lead section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Images

Going through images and seeing if there are any better ones to swap in.

File:STS-135 External Tank floats away.jpg, maybe swap in this?
Agreed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
File:STS-1 The Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters break away from Columbia's External Tank.jpg, maybe swap in File:STS-117 SRB Separation.webm (or a screenshot of it?)
I'm in favor of using an image vs. a video, but that's personal preference on what I like seeing on a page? Do you have a good way to pull a single frame from the video (I think the 15 second mark is probably the best time)? I feel like me just taking a screenshot of the video playing on my computer will have low resolution. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I am in favor of the video, any chance you would reconsider? Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
File:NASA-MHughes-Fulford.JPG with this? It illustrates the section much more logically
Agreed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 06:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Have any opinions on these? Kees08 (Talk) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice work Kees08. I haven't been too engaged with fixing this article up recently, but need to get back at it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Distribution section level

@JustinTime55: My mistake earlier, I unknowingly undid your edit by changing the section level for distribution without looking at the article's edit history. However, I'm inclined to have distribution of orbiters/associated hardware fall under the Retirement header. It's logical to me that the end result of the retirement (equipment being moved away from NASA to display) falls under the retirement concept. Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Looks fine the way it is now. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"Crewed" vs. "manned"

The latest change to the content page replaces "manned" with "crewed" everywhere, with the comment "gender neutral". Isn't this a little overdoing it? AFAIK, "manned" is the adjective commonly used, and I don't feel it as any more sexist than using "mankind" rather than — than what? "Personkind" maybe? — Tonymec (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tonymec. There was an RfC on this topic a little while ago, hope the link will help clarify the situation and people's views on it. Cheers. Kees08 (Talk) 05:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I read that discussion, and found lots of opinions going in favour of both oppose and support, with the “support” side mainly quoting one single NASA style guide idem and both sides calling each other names, of which “mistaken” was maybe one of the mildest. I don't get anything near unanimity out of it. What I get is that some people regard “to man“, “manned” and perhaps even “mankind” as sexist while others regard them as gender-neutral just like I do. “To crew” (and “crewed”) is a verb I had never met before, unlike “to man” and “manned”; but the most extreme of gender-neutralist arguments have always seemed exaggerated to me. YMMV. — Tonymec (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a "Concepts" or "Proposed derivatives" section

I think it would be cool to detail the many studies and evolutions detailed in "Shuttle Variations And Derivatives That Never Happened by Carl F. Ehrlich, Jr and James A. Martin". It basically consists of LFBs, 5 segment SRBS, inline launchers, and stretched space shuttles Is that something that could be added here or should it be its own page? Give the document a look and tell me what you think. https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/about-aiaa/history-and-heritage/shuttlevariationsfinalaiaa.pdf?sfvrsn=b8875e90_0 --RundownPear (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is probably too long as is now. There are links in the See also section to articles that cover these [seemingly], mainly Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

SDLV only covers Shuttle C / Ares / SLS type vehicle. The document covers much more than that. I will create a new page dedicated to "Shuttle Variant Studies" or something like that. --RundownPear (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Good luck! -Fnlayson (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Make the common terms lower case such as "Space Shuttle variation and derivative studies" or whatever... -Fnlayson (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah of course. Just really want to put some of these concepts out there. We all know about Shuttle C but they studied turning the ET into a 20m space telescope, making a humpback payload bay for the orbiter, and even making a shuttle with 70 crew capacity (pressurized cargo bay)! some really crazy stuff. RundownPear (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ascent tracking sub-section

My opinion on the ascent tracking sub-section in this article is that its overly detailed and not a major part of the Space Shuttle. I'm looking at good ways to still use the information about ascent tracking, but I'm not sure where else it would fit in the article. Could I get some thoughts/input? Thanks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the section. While it is certainly a part of the Space Shuttle launch, it doesn't have any direct effect on the spacecraft itself. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

B Class

I gave this article a B-review, corroborated by Rater. Are there any disagreements? It seems like a fine article, and I'm surprised Rater didn't suggest GA.

--Neopeius (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! My goal is to have it progress through the GA and (hopefully) FA wickets, but I wanted to get at least someone else to take a look at it and provide some inputs before I get that process going. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "In popular culture" section

The Space Shuttle is arguably one of the most iconic things about the US space program, so it seems a little excessive to mention various media that it is represented in, as its just most movies/books that have had to portray modern spaceflight. I'm in favor of removing the section, because it's not like the Space Shuttle is an obscure vehicle that would be otherwise unknown without its portrayal in popular media. Could I get some other editors' thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a short section, and I think the Space Shuttle will quickly fade away from the public consciousness. It's already been out of service for nine years. So I'm for keeping it. Also, is there any reason Space Shuttle shouldn't be B-class? It looks quite good. --Neopeius (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. But I would at least like to shorten and standardize it, with similar media types being mentioned together and in the same way. Also, apologies to Michael Bay because I love Armageddon (and, at the age of 30, still fight the urge to cry at the end), but I think it doesn't really use the Shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

SI or Imperial units first

Per MOS:CONVERSIONS the article should list both the imperial and SI units. The article is currently not standardized on which is the priority and which appears in parentheses afterwards. I can see both sides to it, as an American vehicle would be expected to use imperial units, but science-related articles tend to use SI units. My personal preference is to have the SI unit go first, and I'm hoping to get some feedback on what other editors think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My take on it is that, for each such article, we should ask ourselves who the article is for. In a vulgarisation article meant for the general public, and first and foremost for the general American public, I think Imperial units ought to be given priority. OTOH, in a technical article meant for rocket scientists and for students at a "scientific" university faculty, SI units should go first. — Tonymec (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds resonable, but even in scientific articles aimed at the general public, one would expect an encyclopedia to educate. But I'm biased, being interested in the Space Shuttle, and from neither the US or Liberia --Spacepine (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite being an American, I think the scientific aspects of the article should make the SI units the standard. The only intentional deviation from this is using altitude in thousands of feet and speed in knots, as that is the international standard for aviation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good --Spacepine (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Images Redux

Going through images and seeing if there are any better ones to swap in.

File:STS-135 External Tank floats away.jpg, maybe swap in this?
Agreed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
File:STS-1 The Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters break away from Columbia's External Tank.jpg, maybe swap in File:STS-117 SRB Separation.webm (or a screenshot of it?)
I'm in favor of using an image vs. a video, but that's personal preference on what I like seeing on a page? Do you have a good way to pull a single frame from the video (I think the 15 second mark is probably the best time)? I feel like me just taking a screenshot of the video playing on my computer will have low resolution. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm I am in favor of the video, any chance you would reconsider? Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
File:NASA-MHughes-Fulford.JPG with this? It illustrates the section much more logically
Agreed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 06:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Have any opinions on these? Kees08 (Talk) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice work Kees08. I haven't been too engaged with fixing this article up recently, but need to get back at it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but Kees08 said I should give my two cents. I preferred the old external tank picture -- all pictures start as thumbnails, and the new picture, while pretty, barely shows the external tank. I like the STS-1 STB pic, grainy as it is. I can't see where the last picture was as neither it nor the proposed replacement are on the page anymore. --Neopeius (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius see this diff, it was the top of Orbiter markings and insignia. Kees08 (Talk) 18:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I see -- why was that section cut out? Superfluity? --Neopeius (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Neopeius Are you talking about the STS-135 picture that's more of a top down view as the ET floats away (it's file name is STS-135 External Tank floats away.jpg; I can't figure out how to link the file without it rendering on the talk page)? I prefer the newer picture because I think it gives a better scope of how high the ET is released by showing space behind it, but I don't feel that strongly either way. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup. That's the one I was talking about. :) It looks better in thumbnail, but I have no strong preference. Just rendering an opinion since it was asked for. :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Review and comments

Hey Balon Greyjoy. Great work on the article so far! I was glancing through it and making minor edits; would you mind if I listed out the larger items that I think need addressed? It is a huge article and will require a big group effort; I can make the review if you want. It will be kind of a pre-GA level review, bordering on FA. Kees08 (Talk) 18:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Sounds great! I am fine with any and all feedback; my goal is to get this article to FA, so any inputs now will just save myself and any other editors effort down the line. I had a few beers while I was in Guam and decided to finally order the newest Jenkins Space Shuttle books, so I am good to go when it comes to resources! If possible, I would like to get the article to GA status before I go on holiday for most of April (I'm moving to the UK so I need to get my British English down!), but no issue if it gets addressed after. Thanks for your help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Neopeius: Not trying to put any pressure on you, but any idea when you are planning to do this review (Neopeius, I tagged you as well because I figure you will eventually be involved in giving feedback)? I figure this rework will probably take at least a Saturday afternoon, so I'm hoping to get an idea of when to plan on working on it to get it done quickly. Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe sometime by the end of the week for at least a first go through, I think it will take a couple of iterations and some back and forth. Kees08 (Talk) 22:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. I did the B-review. Is the article going up for GA? I'll do my best to help with that. --Neopeius (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Sorry if that was unclear. I just tagged you to keep you in the loop if you wanted to provide any additional feedback like Kees08 is planning on doing. Thanks for your B-review! I'm planning on putting this up for GA (and fingers crossed for FA). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Sounds good! With all of the COVID-19 concerns I'll be spending a lot more time inside, which should give me plenty of time to catch up on a Wikipedia backlog. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Decided to nominate it for GA once I wrapped up the final section. Let me know what feedback you have, regardless of if you're the reviewer! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok! I probably will tonight or this weekend. I'll either put it on the talk page either way (probably let someone else pick it up for GA so it has more eyes on it, consider mine a free GA review!) Kees08 (Talk) 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Good catch with some of the External Links/Further Reading. I think I was so happy to get the body of the article done that I didn't get around to addressing it. I'll address further comments down below. Thanks for the feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 comments

I made this sub section for easier organizing as I went through the tasks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Addressed

See also typically consists of links that will be incorporated into the article when it is further developed. It should be trimmed a ton
I took out everything I viewed as excessive. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
External links list looks excessive, check the external link guideline: WP:EL

Shortened! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Can you incorporate the further reading into the article?
Had trouble getting the article, and it didn't seem to have any info that wasn't already in the referenced sources. Deleted the section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Sfn or equivalent looks soooooo much nicer than rp, I know it is a little harder to use and you don't have to but you should consider it :)

My two cents here -- Kees and I have debated Sfn and rp forever; my vote is always for rp. Better to have slightly cluttered in-lines rather than a thousand sources at the bottom. --Neopeius (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Neopeius on this. I do think the inline citations using Sfn looks cleaner, but I don't like the excessive number of sources that are on display at the bottom. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

At least one hyphen that should be an en dash, check them all: :389-391 (another reason sfn is nice because I can scroll through the references looking for that)
Fixed Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of image sandwiching, at least on my screen MOS:SANDWICH
Removed some photos and left the ones I considered the best. I kept a few exceptions, with the two photos sandwiching the infobox, and the pictures of Endeavour and Discovery upon their retirement. Let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Really, I think the solution here is that I need to up my battlestation game and get a massive monitor (I can unsuccessfully try and justify it to the girlfriend that I need it for Wikipedia and not at all for playing video games)! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
What sections did you remove when you were bringing the article size down?
There was an Overview section at the beginning which was effectively a longer intro that summarized the article. There was a Successors and Legacy section that I also removed, as it was more appropriate when describing the program, not the shuttle itself. Then I removed or combined a lot of sub-sections, like risk contributors, ascent tracking, and the display subsections. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Some duplicated the website name NASA (1998). "Propellant Storage and Distribution". NASA. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
IMDB is not an RS and should be replaced
Any idea what to use? I was trying to find plot summaries for the movies and shows that are referenced. I'd be fine with just taking them out as unreferenced material and only leaving in media with more reliable sources. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I usually try a generic search engine, then try Newspapers.com, and if nothing comes up, review the target article to see if you would expect reliable coverage to exist. I imagine Moontrap will not and Armageddon will. However since the movies just use the shuttle for transportation and aren't featured in the films, not sure they are needed at all..WP:POPCULTURE (an essay) and MOS:POPCULT should have guidance. Kees08 (Talk) 02:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Space Shuttle video game (1983)

Video game (1984) (article written by child..?)

I'm fine with giving the movies without a good RS the axe. I know it seems like the lazy options, but I don't think it detracts from the article. It's not like people will be unfamiliar with the Space Shuttle until the end and then realize that they know about it because they've seen Armageddon. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Is The Internet Pinball Database a RS?
It definitely doesn't seem like the highest quality website, but it's the best source I could find for the pinball machines. Like the shows without a plot description, I'd be fine with taking it out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Found a citation that barely mentions it, but that's the best I could do for now. Your call on inclusion. Maybe there is a book of pinball machines? Could find one and request the information from WP:Resource request Kees08 (Talk) 02:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Like the movies, I'm fine with taking it out. I may be biased because my last pinball experience was on the Game Boy and featured Pokemon, but I don't think of pinball machines as a major cultural touchstone. Other than having space and shuttle-themed artwork, it's not like the shuttle itself played an integral role. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I spy a bare URL ref (klabs)
*Picard covering face meme* Oops. Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Formatting of this ref seems off https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm
Ooops! Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
In infobox, TDRS is title case but the target article is sentence case
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Target article has it capitalized as thermal protection system reentry by the Thermal Protection System (TPS)
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Experienced? The nose cone and leading edges of the wings experiences temperatures
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe I am tired but this sounds off and were further improved after RCC damage due to impact was the cause of the Columbia disaster.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Should reusable come before felt? oated in felt reusable surface insulation
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Missing en dash 382-384
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Think this is missing words and it would travel ballistic trajectory into the Indian or Pacific Ocean.
I was doing my best Charlie Kelly impression. Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Housed? I guess check tense through the article The nose cone primarily houses the parachute systems that were used during recovery
Whoops! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Major events seems like original research
As far as I can tell, it is. Part of me thinks that the major events info belongs on the Space Shuttle Program page. Thoughts on the matter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
My general thought is that it is not up to us to decide what a major event is, so unless reliable sources indicate what Shuttle launches are notable, we cannot indicate it either. I think a timeline written in prose of important firsts could be useful, but probably on the Space Shuttle Program page and not here. I would nuke it here. Kees08 (Talk) 16:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Good call. It's gone! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Ray should be lowercase Launch of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Over cited Germany funded the Spacelab missions D1 and D2.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
We use title or sentence case (usually title) for titles "SPACE SHUTTLE WEATHER LAUNCH COMMIT CRITERIA AND KSC END OF MISSION WEATHER LANDING CRITERIA".
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there any rocket engines that don't use a de Laval nozzle? Seems excessive detail for this (though the gimballing can stay) (I guess aerospikes but no one uses those practically) The rocket nozzles used a de Laval nozzle design, and could gimbal up to 8°.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm using to this defined as LOX when used in rocket engines liquid oxygen (LO2) and
Replaced all LO₂ with LOX. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Unaddressed

Some citations have the author as (last, first) and others (first last). Should be consistent.
Integrate the webarchive links into cite web; if you leave them as webarchive then the formatting between those and cite web are different.
CollectSpace.com. is formatted differently through the citations. I prefer website=collectSPACE but to each their own as long as it is consistent. Check that you have consistency among website/publisher parameters for all
Should have consistent formatting and an accessdate on the date you verified the material "NASA—Sound Suppression System"
There is a citation in the task list on this page that you can add into the article
Can you spread this through the paragraph? [14]:64–68, 100, 124[23]:365, 382–389, 408–411
Spread this through the paragraph too, it is harder to verify when it is a big range at the end of a paragraph. I will just make that a general note and have you find the rest, for WP:V, whatever can be done to make it easier (like keeping page ranges down, more than one citation in a paragraph) are helpful [23]:412[27]:II–177–183
Fuel pods or propellant tanks? and the associated fuel pods
Fuel pods were the source terminology. "Propellanet tanks" sounds more technical, but my gut feeling is to keep it in line with what the source says. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Capitalized as Space Shuttle main engines on the target page, and I recall a discussion, I think on WP:Spaceflight, who confirmed that style the Space Shuttle Main Engines
On that note, is the general consensus to us RS-25 or SSME?
As an update to my previous comment, my vote is SSME. Yes, the RS-25 is the technical name (and more relevant with the Space Launch System), but it seems like the preferred terminology during the shuttle-era was SSME. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have never used metric units for engine pressure, but I always imagined metric designers use MPa. Do you know if kPa or MPa is preferred? of 22,650 kilopascals (3,285 psi)
I'll defer to your plan on this one, as you are an aerospace engineer and I am a guy who plays 1970s video games on a plane! While I do want to use metric whenever its an option, I also want to use the industry standard for units (the notable example is using feet when describing altitude, as that is an aviation standard). I'm guessing that PSI is the unit I should be using; I was simply converting to metric because I assumed it was the relevant unit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
A real quick look online shows bar as the metric unit of choice. I am convinced that people have something against commas in numbers and in scientific notation, so they will use whatever unit gets rid of them. I might double check a rocket prop book later, but it sounds familiar. Kees08 (Talk) 15:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kees08: What's your opinion on this? Should we go with bar for the sake of including metric units, or is psi the universally accepted term? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You talk about the Block 2 before you define it as an upgrade RS-25 upgrade versions were denoted as Block I and Block II.
Does any of this need capitalized? of white Fire-Retardant Latex to provide
Is there a short story of why they thought it was necessary and later thought it was not that can be included? but was determined to be unnecessary and removed, increasing the overall payload capacity.
Reads weird to me (also do we/should we define SSME at some point?) The significant weight reduction of the external tank caused a shift in the center of gravity, which would have resulted in throttling down of the Space Shuttle Main Engines in an abort to orbit scenario.
I see this is sourced, but weren't the abort towers solid propellant? They were the largest solid rocket motors ever flown, and the first solid rocket motors used on a crewed spacecraft.
I don't think ET is defined in the previous section support for the orbiter vehicle and ET,
In general run through and make sure all acronyms are defined at some point
The 'highlight duplicate links' tool comes up with hella results and you should install this into your javascript, then fix the offending instances
- importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks
I haven't read the whole article yet but at a glance I don't see a sort of..legacy maybe is the right word?..section. One that talks about if it was a good idea or not, why it didn't work out as originally designed, etc. Unless there is some article that goes in..seems appropriate enough for here.
- I guess Criticism of the Space Shuttle program is the right article, and I suppose it staying in the Space Shuttle program article is appropriate. Probably no need to do anything here.
You have nasa.gov, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, sometimes wikilinked. Should be consistent on linking and on the name
Two different ways of citing KSC, Pao.ksc.nasa.gov, NASA Kennedy Space Center should be consistent
Any better source for this?
needs en dashes, and an isbn. Icon - 1972-2013.
Looks like Space.com to me Howell, Elizabeth (December 11, 2017). "Endeavour: NASA's Youngest Shuttle". NASA.
PDF "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter III: The Accident". NASA. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 14, 2020. and "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History". Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 16, 2020.
Consistent ISBN hyphenation, I use the hyphenator ISBN 9780894640018.
Weird formatting on this citation: Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32.
Any better source than Channel 13 news? "NASA offers space shuttle tiles to school and universities". Channel 13 News.
Any better source than a student newspaper? Gilpin, Eva (September 8, 2014). "Funds shortage has NASA simulator collecting dust". The Battalion. Texas A&M University.
Publisher Gainesville Sun, website Gainesville.com: Winston, Hannah. "A piece of NASA history lands at Keystone Heights museum". gainesville.com. The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
For the infobox, verify that anything that has a citation in the prose does not have a citation in the infobox (unless for some reason it is contentious). Also, more importantly, make sure that all information that is not cited in the prose has a citation in the infobox (I did not check, but just in case you did not either :) )
Not a good source for that information, can delete: Schweiger, Martin (2010). "Orbiter Manual" (PDF). Retrieved March 13, 2020.
It's the best source I could find for the Orbiter game/sim. I wouldn't be using this source for technical details of the shuttle, but I think it's a reasonable enough source to show that the shuttle is feature in this game. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like infobox rocket accepts a logo parameter, which is where the Shuttle program insignia could go. Or delete it, not sure, I see the Space Shuttle program article has the insignia loud and proud

I could keep going on the citations but go through them with the comments above and try to format them all consistently. Look to Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong for inspiration (or other FAs, SOLRAD 1 most closely follows your current RP format). That should keep you busy for now! More reviewing to come later, feel free to start that work whenever. Kees08 (Talk) 16:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been name-dropped! I feel honored. :) --Neopeius (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work so far, I'll spam more bullet points as I think of them. It is a big article with lots to cover so don't worry about the quantity, and if you disagree with any of my points just let me know, you don't have to incorporate my suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 06:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kees08! I really appreciate your feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

As the review has been picked up now, I can either help you address comments, provide additional comments, or stay away until the review is over. Any is fine with me, I have plenty of projects elsewhere, just let me know what is preferable to you. Kees08 (Talk) 16:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: I thank you for all of your help and feedback that you're giving. I am not one to feel a sense of ownership over the articles I'm working on, so I appreciate any and all help! Plus, I figure that your engineering experience is much more useful on a somewhat technical article than my completely unrelated education and work background! If you make any changes that you deem to be major/contentious, please just drop me a note so that I can take a look at it. But I know you're busy, both on and off Wikipedia, so totally understand that you have other things to take care of! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Shuttle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Is the format of the See also section withing MOS here?
Why is the insignia down in external links (ditto for the commons cat box that's usually in See also)
Removed the insignia (I think it belongs on the Space Shuttle program page) and moved the commons cat box. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Images all but one are PD, that other one appropriately licensed on commons.
Infobox seems good
All images seem to be used appropriately
I believe Kees did a source review? I'll defer to those comments - also, those unaddressed comments, I agree with. Some of them I don't feel need to happen before this can reach GA, but obviously would be ideal to have them

Lead

Good length for article
In addition to the prototype whose completion was cancelled - do we use 'whose' for an inanimate object? (Actual question, MOS may dictate)
Reworded it. Decided to take out the part about the Enterprise prototype entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Good overview, with appropriate wikilinks

Historical background

Made one minor tense change, so that the aerospaceplane part doesn't sound awkward writing semi-achronologically, but this part is good.

Design process

Isn't the Space Shuttle design process page really the main article - it could use a main template?
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe expand on stage-and-a-half staging
Done. Not the biggest fan of how it reads. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The Air Force expected to launch large satellites into a polar orbit, and that the Space Shuttle have a 4.6-meter (15 ft) by 18-meter (60 ft) foot payload bay, 1,800-kilometer (1,100 mi) cross-range, and the capacity to lift 29,000-kilogram (65,000 lb) to an easterly low Earth orbit, and 18,000-kilogram (40,000 lb) into polar orbit runs on a bit, and grammar might need some tweaks
Broken into multiple sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Development

Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps some explanation on what the Main Propulsion Test Article and Structural Test Article are, in broad terms - though it reads alright and context clues mean it's alright
I added some explanation; let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
(Oh, happy what-would-have-been 45th birthday to Columbia)
I am a bit stuck on what Rockwell began converting STA-099 to OV-099 means though - converting it to fit or just remodeling the STA into an orbital vehicle?
I am inclined to go to converting, as that sounds like a more extensive overhaul than reverting. Changing an STA to an OV involved a lot of change, so I want to highlight that with using "converting," but that's just my opinion. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Testing

seems good

Description

intro good

Orbiter

The first paragraph could have refs spread throughout a bit more, but equally it is a whole chunk of information that will probably be read all together in the sources, so not important to do.
The second paragraph seems like it belongs with the last paragraph of the Development section? Not sure how this information is best spread.
It has a lot of duplicate info. I removed it from the Orbiter section and will leave what's in the Development section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Crew compartment

Not sure if this is the place for the crew suit info, but not sure where else it would go.
I remember having the same thought, but am not sure where else it would belong. I know it's not part of the shuttle, per se, but I think it's still an important component to mention. I think it's most appropriate here. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Flight systems

looks good Kingsif (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Payload bay

also good, though there might be some duplicate wikilinks

Remote manipulator...

EVA is a dup wikilink - I think Kees mentioned adding the script to check these, which I recommend, too
- This should also only be referred to by its acronym, as this has already been established in the article
"six-degrees" shouldn't be hyphenated
Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
How did the RMS' strength increase so much? This is probably answered at the main article, but it's my big question from this section so it would be nice to include it here
I'm not seeing anything in the source material. The 2016 Jenkins book "Changes implemented in 1998 raised this to 586,000 pounds." I couldn't find any additional sources that explain what those changes were. I'm inclined to leave it, but I understand that it seems anomalous as that's a 9-times increase. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Spacelab

looks good :)

RS-25

This isn't the first use of the verb gimbal, but it's the first wikilink - either move wikilink up or ditch it
- For that respect, do pitch and yaw need links?
I moved the gimbal link and added pitch/yaw wikilinks. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the last part of the sentence The RS-25 is a staged-combustion cycle cryogenic engine that used liquid oxygen and hydrogen that had a higher chamber pressure than any previous liquid rocket referring to the engine or to the hydrogen used? Currently, it's the hydrogen, but that doesn't seem right - recommend changing the last 'that' to ', and' if it's about the engine's pressure
Think I fixed it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
kilopascals and psi could use links, too
Any idea how to link the units in the convert template? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Think I got it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The tense changes mid-sentence in The nozzle is cooled by 1,080 interior lines carrying liquid hydrogen, and were additionally protected by insulative and ablative material
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
dup link for Rocketdyne?
Removed Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

OMS

highly technical paragraph that still makes sense. Seems fine, but maybe a bit bare on what it actually is, behind all the science of how it works
I struggled with this paragraph. I figured the OMS is important enough for its own section, but I feel like there's not much to say about it (according to the sources that I'm using) to add further descriptions about it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

TPS

also good

External tank

Could spread the refs of paragraph 2 throughout, rather than three at the end, if appropriate
Dup link for STS-2
Maybe I'm missing it (or forgot I fixed it it) but I'm not seeing a second link for STS-2? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The third paragraph could more specifically say that removing the latex (as Kees asked - does this need caps?) made the tank lighter, and so the shuttle could carry more, since this is mentioned at the top of the article
does center of gravity really need a link?
Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

SRBs

Should Thiokol have a link
Linked earlier under "Design process." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
STS-6 and STS-7 used that were 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) lighter - presumably they used SRBs?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Specifications

looks fine, though I wonder about the use of refs: are all of the extra ones through the list needed, aren't these covered in the main ref at the top of the section?

Mission profile

Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Launch prep

I don't think the (KSC) is needed; is the Kennedy Space Center ever called this, in general and in this article?
It is often referred to by that acronym outside of Wikipedia. Kees08 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It's often used. I replaced instances of it with its acronym. The only exception is that I left it fully spelled out in the first use of the KSC Vistor Center complex to avoid any ambiguity. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Could use some clarity at The SRBs were assembled from the sections they arrived in - most things are assembled from the parts available, this seems redundant unless there's some detail that's not apparent?
I reworded it to say they were assembled and then attached. I go over the different sections in the SRBs in their description sub-section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer an image of the crawler-transporters or the VAB (one that shows how massive they are) in this part? But that's me
Changed the photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Should the 'was' in launch conditions required that the weather conditions was acceptable be 'were', or not?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Launch

The T minus notation here uses en-dashes, whereas above they use hyphens. I don't know which is correct (if either), but it should be standardized through the article
Changed to en-dash throughout! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't At T-0, the Johnson Space Center's (JSC) Mission Control Center assumed control of the flight from the LCC be moved a few sentences up, for chronological order?
This is something I debated, but I decided to leave as is to keep the sentences about the SSME start up and the launch control separate. It is slightly out of chronological order, but I think it makes more sense than having a sentence about engine start up, having a sentence about who is now in control of the mission, and then another sentence about the SSMEs. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
20-30 seconds and 65-72% should probably use an en-dash, too; I think that's what has been done above
Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Does Johnson Space Center need the (JSC), either?
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
What is the unit NM? (wikilink?)
Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In orbit

good

re-entry and landing & landing sites

Kennedy Space Center doesn't need the link here
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Does Edwards Air Force Base need a wikilink?
No. Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Post landing

Edwards, shuttle carrier aircraft, and Shuttle landing facility don't need links here
Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Disasters

Perhaps add the mission names (STS-51-L and STS-107) in the prose?
Worked it in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It's always interesting to see bureaucracy kill astronauts...
STS-107 won't be the last time, unfortunately. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Retirement

I think low Earth orbit already has a link above, too
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This part does use KSC for Kennedy, but it's the only instance, so I still don't see the use
Made changes throughout the article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of ...

Space Shuttle program should have a wikilink, this is its first appearance in the body
Moved from later in the section! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
This and the next sub-section (Orbiters on display) seem like they should be combined, I'm not sure how would be best. Current structure probably fine

Orbiters on display

The bullet on Endeavor is a long run-on that's hard to follow
Improved (I think!) Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Rockwell, Space Shuttle program, shuttle carrier aircraft, steel, wood, NASA - don't need wikilinks here
Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
(please use the script tool to see if there's other dup wikilinks)
I think I've got it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hardware on display

JSC used here, but not before, similar to the Kennedy question - is this really worth using?
Made changes throughout the article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

looks good

Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Kees08 comments

Here are the Kees08's unaddressed comments from Talk:Space Shuttle. I'm copying them here so that I can address all feedback on the same page. I'll plan on categorizing/organizing them.

Some citations have the author as (last, first) and others (first last). Should be consistent.
I think all now read (last, first). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Integrate the webarchive links into cite web; if you leave them as webarchive then the formatting between those and cite web are different.
Fixed the two occurrences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
CollectSpace.com. is formatted differently through the citations. I prefer website=collectSPACE but to each their own as long as it is consistent. Check that you have consistency among website/publisher parameters for all
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Should have consistent formatting and an accessdate on the date you verified the material "NASA—Sound Suppression System"
Could you clarify? I think I fixed the access-date issue, but I'm not sure what formatting issue you are talking about. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I was not clear. NASA, nasa.gov, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration are all used to cite from NASA. I prefer NASA but you can choose whatever you like so long as it is consistent. (I have this point later, can't remember why I duplicated this) Kees08 (Talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm replacing everything with "NASA." However, one thing I'm not sure about is if I should be linking "NASA" in every unique reference (since there are a lot that have NASA as the publisher). I couldn't find any guidance at WP:Citing Sources. For the time being, I'll Wikilink NASA. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a citation in the task list on this page that you can add into the article
Which citation? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
On the talk page there is a to-do list near the top which contains one item. Your call on if it needs done or not, but I usually try to get those completed or confirm they don't need completed around GA time. They are easy to miss! Kees08 (Talk) 18:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm electing to remove this from the to-do list without addressing it. It made more sense when the retirement section focused on the political decision making behind the orbiter locations. But since the focus of this article is more about the hardware itself, I think that is more fitting on a page about the Space Shuttle retirement. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Can you spread this through the paragraph? [14]:64–68, 100, 124[23]:365, 382–389, 408–411
Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Spread this through the paragraph too, it is harder to verify when it is a big range at the end of a paragraph. I will just make that a general note and have you find the rest, for WP:V, whatever can be done to make it easier (like keeping page ranges down, more than one citation in a paragraph) are helpful [23]:412[27]:II–177–183
@Kees08: Almost done with this; it's been a real lesson in not being lazy the first time around! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I think (famous last words) I'm done with this! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Fuel pods or propellant tanks? and the associated fuel pods
Fuel pods were the source terminology. "Propellanet tanks" sounds more technical, but my gut feeling is to keep it in line with what the source says. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I looked into it more and understand it better. The pods are the whole thing (like in this image). I think it is generally referred to as 'OMS pod'. The source we use for this article refers to them as the OMS pod or OMS/RCS pods. The description it gives for the contents are Each pod contains one OMS engine and the hardware needed to pressurize, store and distribute the propellants to perform the velocity maneuvers.

Based on that, I would maybe rephrase The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) pods consisted of two aft-mounted AJ10-190 engines and the associated fuel pods. to The aft-mounted Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) consisted of two AJ10-190 engines, the hardware required to deliver propellant to the engines, and the propellant needed for maneuvering.

I am pretty indifferent on how it is rephrased, but I think the current phrasing is wrong since the engines are part of the pod, and they are not really 'fuel pods', they are OMS or OMS/RCS pods. There are a few good options for images to include, and I think it would be helpful to illustrate to the reader that the pods are the big detachable bits on the ass-end of the shuttle. Maybe File:OMS maneuvering engines.jpg, though I like the image I linked earlier that shows it detached so you can see real hardware and where it is attached. See Commons:Category:Space_Shuttle_Orbital_Maneuvering_System for more options. You do not have to include an image, completely optional. Choosing images for this article that best illustrate the Space Shuttle in an encyclopedic way is going to be very difficult, especially since there are so many good 'eye candy' images to choose from that are less encyclopedic. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I just replaced "fuel pods" with "propellant tanks." Your version is more descriptive, but I think it's clear that the propellant tanks deliver propellant to the OMS engines so we don't need to mention the hardware that delivered it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Capitalized as Space Shuttle main engines on the target page, and I recall a discussion, I think on WP:Spaceflight, who confirmed that style the Space Shuttle Main Engines
On that note, is the general consensus to us RS-25 or SSME?
As an update to my previous comment, my vote is SSME. Yes, the RS-25 is the technical name (and more relevant with the Space Launch System), but it seems like the preferred terminology during the shuttle-era was SSME. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have never used metric units for engine pressure, but I always imagined metric designers use MPa. Do you know if kPa or MPa is preferred? of 22,650 kilopascals (3,285 psi)
I'll defer to your plan on this one, as you are an aerospace engineer and I am a guy who plays 1970s video games on a plane! While I do want to use metric whenever its an option, I also want to use the industry standard for units (the notable example is using feet when describing altitude, as that is an aviation standard). I'm guessing that PSI is the unit I should be using; I was simply converting to metric because I assumed it was the relevant unit. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
A real quick look online shows bar as the metric unit of choice. I am convinced that people have something against commas in numbers and in scientific notation, so they will use whatever unit gets rid of them. I might double check a rocket prop book later, but it sounds familiar. Kees08 (Talk) 15:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You talk about the Block 2 before you define it as an upgrade RS-25 upgrade versions were denoted as Block I and Block II.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Does any of this need capitalized? of white Fire-Retardant Latex to provide
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there a short story of why they thought it was necessary and later thought it was not that can be included? but was determined to be unnecessary and removed, increasing the overall payload capacity.
I am under the impression that it was an aesthetic choice, but I'll try to find a source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Update: I was wrong! I added some additional info. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Reads weird to me (also do we/should we define SSME at some point?) The significant weight reduction of the external tank caused a shift in the center of gravity, which would have resulted in throttling down of the Space Shuttle Main Engines in an abort to orbit scenario.
Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I see this is sourced, but weren't the abort towers solid propellant? They were the largest solid rocket motors ever flown, and the first solid rocket motors used on a crewed spacecraft.
It's semantics, but I think of it as the first solid rocket motor that was part of the ascent, not the emergency option. But I also think it's a subjective metric; so I took it out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think ET is defined in the previous section support for the orbiter vehicle and ET,
It is now! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
In general run through and make sure all acronyms are defined at some point
Think I'm good, but my glasses haven't been replaced in a few years, so feel free to point out my errors! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The 'highlight duplicate links' tool comes up with hella results and you should install this into your javascript, then fix the offending instances
- importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I haven't read the whole article yet but at a glance I don't see a sort of..legacy maybe is the right word?..section. One that talks about if it was a good idea or not, why it didn't work out as originally designed, etc. Unless there is some article that goes in..seems appropriate enough for here.
- I guess Criticism of the Space Shuttle program is the right article, and I suppose it staying in the Space Shuttle program article is appropriate. Probably no need to do anything here.
  - I agree. While there is obviously going to be so overlap with this article and others pertaining to the Space Shuttle, my goal was to focus as much as possible on the hardware itself, not the program as a whole. I think it could be a never-ending improvement project to continue delving into the different aspects of the shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You have nasa.gov, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, sometimes wikilinked. Should be consistent on linking and on the name
Fixed and wikilinked Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Two different ways of citing KSC, Pao.ksc.nasa.gov, NASA Kennedy Space Center should be consistent
Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Any better source for this?
Mischief managed; I took out the ref and the info it referenced. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
needs en dashes, and an isbn. Icon - 1972-2013.
Added both!
Looks like Space.com to me Howell, Elizabeth (December 11, 2017). "Endeavour: NASA's Youngest Shuttle". NASA.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
PDF "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter III: The Accident". NASA. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 14, 2020. and "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History". Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. June 6, 1986. Retrieved March 16, 2020.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Consistent ISBN hyphenation, I use the hyphenator ISBN 9780894640018.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Weird formatting on this citation: Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Any better source than Channel 13 news? "NASA offers space shuttle tiles to school and universities". Channel 13 News.
Got a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Any better source than a student newspaper? Gilpin, Eva (September 8, 2014). "Funds shortage has NASA simulator collecting dust". The Battalion. Texas A&M University.
Reworded the sentence and used a Space.com ref Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Publisher Gainesville Sun, website Gainesville.com: Winston, Hannah. "A piece of NASA history lands at Keystone Heights museum". gainesville.com. The Gainesville Sun. Retrieved March 16, 2019.
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
For the infobox, verify that anything that has a citation in the prose does not have a citation in the infobox (unless for some reason it is contentious). Also, more importantly, make sure that all information that is not cited in the prose has a citation in the infobox (I did not check, but just in case you did not either :) )
I think it's good. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a good source for that information, can delete: Schweiger, Martin (2010). "Orbiter Manual" (PDF). Retrieved March 13, 2020.
It's the best source I could find for the Orbiter game/sim. I wouldn't be using this source for technical details of the shuttle, but I think it's a reasonable enough source to show that the shuttle is feature in this game. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This is a better source as it is a non-primary source, and should be good enough to establish notability for inclusion. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like infobox rocket accepts a logo parameter, which is where the Shuttle program insignia could go. Or delete it, not sure, I see the Space Shuttle program article has the insignia loud and proud
I want to leave the logo out, as that seems more like a program thing, not the shuttle itself. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I asked a question related to correcting a parameter used in the infobox here, so you know. Template_talk:Infobox_rocket#Infobox_rocket/stage_..._fuel?_or_propellant?. Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems like the consensus is for "propellant." I looked through the template page and added in "|boosterfuel=" thinking that would result in propellant, but it just took off the Fuel section when the page rendered. Any idea on what to do? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Overall

FYI I have been posting comments on the article talk page, which you can use in the GA review if you want, or not. Just been giving some informal feedback to get the article improved. I'll hold off giving any additional until your review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 03:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Kees, any input welcome Kingsif (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: All my comments are above, if there's any area you think my comments haven't covered, please ask. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect! Time to get working on these! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I see a lot of work has been done, where are we at with the comments? Kingsif (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Barring any forgetfulness on my part (not unheard of!), the comments should be caught up with the edits I've made. I'll definitely need some more time for the edits, but I'm hoping to get it wrapped up this weekend. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Overpromised and underdelivered! Sorry about that; weekend got a lot more hectic than anticipated. Still working on this article after a few days away! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I think I have finished all of your suggested edits. The ones I haven't attacked yet are the ones that marry up with Kees08's comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Hi! Sorry to be that guy, but I have become significantly busier since the COVID-19 cases have risen in Japan. I still have every intention of working on this article when I can, but the going will probably be a little slower than I originally hoped. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif and Kees08: I think I have addressed all comments. Please let me know if there is anything else you want me to work on. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I'll wait on any comments from Kees. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kees08: Any additional feedback? Thanks so much for your help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Any update on this? I'm not seeing any additional feedback from Kees08. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: I'm happy to pass it. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for the review! Sorry that it ended up taking so much longer than I originally forecasted! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

4-segment SRBs

@Soumya-8974: I removed your addition of the prefix "4-segment" before the solid rocket boosters. While there were 4 segments to the boosters, that's an unnecessary addition to the name. The number of segments didn't change throughout the life of the shuttle program, and no literature that I've seen refers to them as anything other than the Solid Rocket Boosters. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: He may have been trying to draw a distinction between the Shuttle-derived 5-segment SRBs used by the Space Launch System. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, probably so. Being made up of 4 segments should be mentioned somewhere in the SRB section imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: exactly. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

"Rockwell Space Shuttle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rockwell Space Shuttle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Rockwell Space Shuttle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"Sci.space.history" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sci.space.history. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Sci.space.history until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Shuttleman" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shuttleman. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Shuttleman until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Capacity figure for polar orbit

I've placed a "citation needed" on the figure for maximum capacity to polar orbit:

Payload to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)

(This was added in edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle&oldid=402377328 - I've sent a message to the editor.)

As well as the figure being unsourced, there are other issues here.

The altitude of the polar orbit in question is not given.
Nor is the value for the number of degrees of inclination, although I think people more expert than I could work out a range for this number.
Finally, and most importantly, other sources appear to contradict this figure. That said, they are not entirely consistent with each other.

At https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/launch.html, we find:

 "Using OV-103 (Discovery) or OV-104 (Atlantis), the cargo-lift weight capability is 29,600 pounds for a 98-degree launch inclination and 110-nautical-mile (126-statute-mile) polar orbit. Again, an increase in altitude costs approximately 100 pounds per nautical mile. NASA assumes also that the advanced solid rocket motor will replace the filament-wound solid rocket motor case previously used for western test range assessments.

 The same mission at 68 degrees inclination (minimum western test range inclination based on range safety limitations) is 49,600 pounds.

 Performance for intermediate inclinations can be estimated by allowing 660 pounds for each degree of plane change between inclinations of 68 and 98 degrees."

 (666.66 seems more accurate than 660, but I digress)

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2599/1 and https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/589823/teal-ruby/ describe a cancelled mission that would have placed a spacecraft (2000lb according to one, nearer 6000lb according to the other) in a roughly 740km (400 nautical mile) altitude polar orbit at 72.5 degree inclination. Using the above figures, the maximum capacity to that orbit would have been 17,600 lb.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/vafb-slc-6.htm mentions an Air Force colonel "admitting that the Air Force built SLC-6 to put 32,000-pound payloads into polar orbit"
Space Shuttle Reference mission 3B was to recover a 25,000 lb satellite from a 100 nautical mile polar orbit.

NOTE: A lot of these figures may have been given at the planning stage, and may not be indicative of the Shuttle's actual capacity after it was built. I have found an unsourced claim online that Reference Missions 3A and 3B stopped being design constraints at some point.

Plus, of course, the Shuttle never actually flew a mission to polar orbit!

For these reasons, I've put a "citation needed" on the polar orbit figure. And without altitude/inclination, I think that there's an argument for deleting it even with a citation.

AstridRedfern (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional - I used the calculations from https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/launch.html to get a rough figure for the capacity for a 90 degree polar orbit at the altitude given, but it wasn't even close to 28,000 pounds.

AstridRedfern (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't refurbished and reused be a better term to use than just reused?

The Space Shuttle was never just flat out reused, it needed to be refurbished first, which of course involved taking apart most of the shuttle and then putting it back together, and the SRBs needed to be fully taken apart and have a lot of parts replaced, unlike a falcon 9 booster or falcon heavy side booster (center core is not quite reusable yet, since every center core fell in the water) which can just be checked over and then flown again a few weeks later, so I think refurbished and reused would be a better term instead of flat out reused. Kadermonkey (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly - edit1.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly - edit1.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 12, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-04-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The John F. Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, Florida, is NASA's primary launch center of human spaceflight. Launch operations for the Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle programs were carried out here. This photograph shows Space Shuttle Atlantis at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A in the evening before the launch of STS-129, a mission to the International Space Station in November 2009.

Photograph credit: NASA / Bill Ingalls; retouched by Bammesk

Recently featured:

Standardized page number citation format

@GraemeLeggett: Some, but not all, of the instances of references using {{rp}} have been replaced by the {{sfn}} format. Both of these formats are listed as acceptable options under WP:REFPAGE. Per WP:CITEVAR, pages shouldn't be edited solely to modify the citation style. As use of the {{rp}} is the style used on this page, I am reverting these changes to keep the page's citation style standardized throughout. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird search stuff

I went online to search for OV-106 (the spare parts) and when I looked at pictures it gave me something about a Space Shuttle Daedalus. Does anyone know what this is? Anonymous9149779879789 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What is this???

???

Pure fiction: that's the name used for a Shuttle in the movie Space Cowboys (you know, the one with Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner). A simple Google search will tell you this. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Is me adding content about SpaceX mission to Mars okay? - NO

I added it before but it was reverted, starting an edit war by accident. I would ask to see if it is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:9B1C:1200:C51D:BBBF:2F21:859B (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How would SX mission to Mars be relevant to this article about the space shuttle ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the communications blackout period during reentry

Seems the communications blackout period during reentry was about 13 minutes, from 265,000 ft down to 162,000 ft (because of the speed). - Rod57 (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Lots of overlap with space shuttle orbiter

Wouldn't it be better if this article just summarised space shuttle orbiter rather than duplicating content ? In a few cases this article has more detail than space shuttle orbiter - eg mention of the external airlock. - Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is more of a reflection of the work that needs to be done on space shuttle orbiter rather than an overly-detailed Space Shuttle page. I think the orbiter, due to the complexity of that component, requires more explanation than the ET and SRBs. I'm certainly biased, but I think the page as it is offers enough detail for a reader to understand the important information about the orbiter without going into too much detail. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

O-ring criticisms repressed rather than "ignored".

The word ignore carries a connotation of over looked rather than what happened which was that NASA management actively threatened the contract of Morton Thiokol, and tried to technobabble the congressional investigation that the O-rings wouldn't lose resilience in cold. A cheat exposed by Richard Feynman in testimony before congress where he proved by direct example that the rubber did lose resilience. That's not ignoring the problem. That's repressing criticism of it. Another word could be rejecting criticism. NASA took an active role in it. Using a passive word like ignored is inaccurate. Passive words are not substitutes for neutral words. 98.164.76.40 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I think "ignored" accurately summarized NASA management towards the problem. Their behavior post-accident has no bearing on what caused the destruction of ``Challenger``. Additionally, I would not considered "ignored" a passive word, as it is not the same as saying they were "unaware". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lensaticflare.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying appropriate date format for this page

There has recently been some back-and-forth editing on the appropriate date format to use for this page, either "dmy" or "mdy". According to MOS:DATETIES, the standard for US-centric articles is mdy. As the Space Shuttle is a US government space vehicle, I think its date format should conform to common US date formatting practices.

@CRS-20 and Fnlayson: to get your input.

Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The article should MDY date format. If WP:Spaceflight says otherwise, they are wrong, as they cannot mandate that at the project level. There is no exception for US civilian government organizations as there is for the US military at WP:DATETIES. See here, and the notice on the talk page at WT:SPACEFLIGHT#Removal of Dates and times section in the style guide. BilCat (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop changing date format

@CRS-20 The date format of this page is dmy, please don't change it. It is a US topic and has strong US connections. You do this all over Wikipedia changing spaceflight articles from MDY to DMY format. Please stop. Spaceflight articles should be associated with the country of origin or the standard practice of that company in using dates. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get that the US uses DMY? (Only military, which NASA is not.) Per WP:DATETIES, US commonly uses MDY. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

should be ? CRS-20 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@CRS-20: What you/we/I think should or should not be isn't relevant. The topic is US-centric, so dmy is to be used, see MOS:DATETIES for guidance. --Zac67 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Zac67, where do you get that? WP:DATETIES very clearly says US commonly uses MDY, not dmy. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:DATETIES is a much more precise pointer than MOS:DATETIES. JustinTime55 (talk)

Acronym template

@CactiStaccingCrane: Could you please address the acronyms that you find unnecessary? I see from your edit summary that you don't like the use of LOX and LH2. I disagree, as those are the commonly used terms for liquid oxygen and liquid, both in and out of the US space program. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are used a ton in many industries, and the acronyms aren't exactly niche. However, for an average reader, they are completely clueless, and if there's a better alternative out there, we should use it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the acronyms are all spelled out and used repeatedly (as opposed to being spelled out once at the beginning and then not used again until the end). I am removing the jargon template, as I do not believe it applies here. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I also don't think it has that problem anymore. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You can allways use {{abbr|LOX|Liquid Oxygen}} to create a tooltip, example LOX, to save the user searching through the article for first use. MilborneOne (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, although this may not be ideal for user printing this article. I suspect that this can be the case in schools. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

For discussion prior to August 29, 2006, see Talk:Space Shuttle program

Write NASA in full or in acronym?

User:Fnlayson and User:BilCat, I think that we shouldn't write NASA in full as it is long and provide little helpful information to the reader who came here to learn about the Space Shuttle. I think if a person want to know NASA's full name, they can just click on the link. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The acronym "NASA" should be treated as all other acronyms and written out in its entirety for the first usage. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Add more information by our group

we are gonna add where all retired Space Shuttle going for now overall, so make sure the overall is more specific. Let users can more understanding. Then keep adding some information in the next section, and check where the should be supplement. That is all our's plan, we wanna improve this article.Berkeley8 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be referring the the Space Shuttle Orbiters, which are covered at Space Shuttle orbiter. The fate of each orbiter is covered there. The Space Shuttle is the assembly of Orbiter, External Tank and Boosters; this is also called stack sometimes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is necessary mention root of the space shuttle?

Alought Historical background mentioned the history, not mentioned the root of the space shuttle, silbervogel. Is necessary to add it? Berkeley8 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Astronaut Qualifications

Within this article, there's no description about the requirements to be a space shuttle crew. If there's one, I think it would help readers understand the rigorous selection process and training that astronauts undergo to become part of a Space Shuttle mission. I'm thinking about adding these two links with some explanation for each of them: [1][2]. What do you think? Moonlight6928 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SSME.html

[2] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Specifications

[3] ttps://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Space_Shuttle_main_engine

[1]

[2]

[3]