Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10 June 2021 [1].

Shuttle-Centaur

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a proposed upper stage for the Space Shuttle using the Centaur upper stage rocket. The whole Space Shuttle program was mired in controversy from the start, and this project spent a billion dollars with meagre results. The article addresses several questions and provides object lessons. It has been said that Shuttle-Centaur was a casualty of NASA's increased safety consciousness after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, but as the article shows, this was not entirely true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text review by Neopeius

[edit]

I promised to review this article, and I shall, but things are still very busy. I have a few issues I'll want to talk about when I've done the whole thing. Sorry for the delay. Putting this here as a placeholder so mods don't close the FAC for lack of interest -- this is a worthy article. --Neopeius (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review, at long last, but I'm glad I waited as you had a chance to address other issues. There's not too much to be done as we worked together on A-Class. Here's what I've got:

  • I bounce off the second paragraph of the lede every time. It's practically a restating of a few paragraphs from the main text and not the most vital ones. I would just delete it. In any event, "Both versions were cradled" would be better phrased as "Both versions were designed to be cradled.." since none were ever actually flown.
    True, but they actually were mated with the CISS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't block FAC for it, but consider making the second paragraph cover more ground than just the truss. I still bounce off of it. :)
    Expanded the intro. Let me know if there are more points you think should be mentioned in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that works, thanks. You may have addressed the points below, but I don't see a reply. Can you go through them and determine their status (including the corrections where I don't say change this for that but instead just post the sentence to be changed with strikeout incorporated in it? Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should all be done now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Centaur

  • Change "Centaur was developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer." to "Centaur was an upper stage rocket using liquid hydrogen as a fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s." -- most defining facts should come first.
    The proposed form makes it sound as if the oxidizer was developed by General Dynamics. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
    How about commas before "using" and after "oxidizer"? I think it's important that people know it's a rocket first and who is was made by second.
    Re-worded to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


*Change "The technical problems were overcome. The development" to "The technical problems were overcome, and the development" (it makes the sentence a little longer, but otherwise, the first sentence just sits there.

Space Shuttle upper stages

*"However, the IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages, a large one" Replace last comma with a colon.

  • Replaced comma with colon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a planetary mission," to "A configuration with three stages, two large and one small, would be enough for a direct outer planetary mission," (a trip to Mars or Venus wouldn't need it)
    Sources don't say that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they do. How else would Galileo slingshot? :)
    The source says: Specifically, the Air Force asked NASA to develop an additional stage that could be used for planetary missions such as a proposed probe to Jupiter called Galileo. NASA made Boeing the prime contractor for developing the IUS. went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deep space probes *"which was interested in the development of autonomous spacecraft that could take evasive action in the face of anti-satellite weapons, and the manner in which the JPL was designing Galileo to withstand the intense radiation of the magnetosphere of Jupiter, which had had application in surviving nearby nuclear detonations." I'm not sure how this relates to Galileo

Perfect.

*Change "there was another mission on the cards:" to "...in the cards" (since you're using American English throughout)

Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur

*"NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft," replace comma with colon

Congressional approval

*Change "In addition to the funding, it directed NASA and Boeing to cease work on the two stage IUS for Galileo" to "In addition to allocating funding, the Ac directed NASA and Boeing..."'

  • Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centaur G and G Prime avionics were the same as that of the standard Centaur and were still mounted in the forward equipment module. TheyIt used a 24-bit Teledyne Digital Computer Unit with 16 kilobytes of RAM to control guidance and navigation. TheyIt still used the same pressurized steel tank, but with some additional insulation including a two-layer foam blanket over the forward bulkhead and a three-layer radiation shield.[50] Other changes included new forward and aft adapters; a new propellant fill, drain and dump system; and an S band transmitter and RF system compatible with the tracking and data relay satellite system.[53] Considerable effort was put into making the Centaur safe, with redundant components to overcome malfunctions and a propellant draining, dumping and venting system so that the propellants could be dumped in case of emergency."
    Changes suggested because you are talking about two boosters.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Management

*"At first, the engineers at the Lewis Research Center preferred to have it declared a payload" "At first" not followed by an expected "but later"...

Preparations

*"both crews were entirely composed of astronauts who had already flown in space at least once before, and were known to not suffer from it." Delete comma.

  • Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency, one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program." to "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but it was also an extremely unlikely contingency (in fact, one that never occurred in the life of the Space Shuttle program)."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation *I think the paragraph immediately preceding, about the Challenger disaster, would be better as the first paragraph of this section.

Legacy

*change "When the JPL tried to use its high gain antenna" to "When the JPL tried to use Galileo's high gain antenna"

*"The Ulysses project scientists had to wait even longer; the Ulysses spacecraft was launched using the IUS and Payload Assist Module on STS-41 on 6 October 1990.[33]" Currently this goes right into the Titan IV sentence. I'd put a carriage return after. It's all right if it stands alone.

---

That's what I got! --Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

[edit]

Support Comments by Nick-D As disclosure, I'm reviewing in response to a request from Hawkeye on my talk page. I don't think I've ever given them an easy ride on nominations though, and won't be doing so this time either ;)

This article took six months to get through A-class, so I asked out of fear that it would get archived for want of reviewers like my last FAC submission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the lead should be be re-written to be less technical. E.g. was this a self-contained rocket system, or something which required a space shuttle? (and if so, how?) I'm a space nerd, and I don't really understand this sentence, and as a result the subject of the article isn't really clear on the basis of the lead. I didn't really understand the concept here until I saw the image in the 'design' section (which might be a better choice for the infobox as a result).
    Wait. Hold on. You're a space nerd? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you're not surprised? The cross over of military nerds and space nerds is about 100%. I'm particularly interested in the Cold War-era space programs. The change to the lead looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Centaur was developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s..." - say who developed it, at least broadly (e.g. was this developed by/for NASA and/or the USAF?)
    It says it in the next paragraph. Moved to this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences in the para starting with "Centaur upper stages were used..." are a bit complex and lengthy
    Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto the sentence starting with "NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch" (perhaps split into two sentences)
    Split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who contended that contamination observed during early Space Shuttle..." - it's not clear what this means
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS" - were these modifications significant, and were they removed when the program was cancelled?
    Added "These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage". Challenger was destroyed before a Centaur mission could be flown; there is no record of the changes being removed on Discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair enough. It seems that each Space Shuttle had a lot of unique quirks by the end of the program. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore" - do we know when?
    Added "in November 1985". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an extremely dangerous maneuver under any circumstance, but one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program" - bit unclear (is the second half of this sentence needed?)
    Yes. The point is that it was a dangerous contingency, but an unlikely one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which he made the case for Moore the Space Shuttle " - should this be "in which he made the case to Moore"? Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those changes all look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt.

[edit]
  • The lead paragraph is rather long. I might try to split it.
    Already split. Just a running issue with the browser. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone reading the first paragraph by itself might not be clear on whether the Shuttle-Centaur actually happened, since you open by saying it was "proposed" but say two versions were produced.
    Deleted "proposed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a demonstration to United States Air Force (USAF) and NASA officials.[6]" I would say "for" rather than "to" as more common in AmEng.
    Take your word for it. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Budget cutbacks in the early 1970s led to the termination of Saturn V production" When did the Saturn V production in fact end? Just makings sure dates are correct.
    The decision to cancel was taken in 1969; the last one was delivered in 1972. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added that the decision was taken in 1969. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the USAF questioned NASA's determination that all US space launches, civil and military, should use the Space Shuttle, NASA Administrator James M. Beggs insisted that expendable launch vehicles were obsolete, and that any money spent on them would only undermine the Space Shuttle's cost-effectiveness." This might be dated better since Beggs was Administrator under Reagan and you've just been discussing events in the early 1970s.
    Moved down to the a better place chronologically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so slow. Here's the rest.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Like Nick-D, Hawkeye7 requested this review on my talk page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "liquid oxygen as an oxidiser" The rest of the article uses MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, so I'm assuming this should be "oxidizer".
    Oooh. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an attractive prospect in the early days of the Space Race" The advantages of using liquid hydrogen are clear with the higher energy/mass ratio over kerosene, and this makes it seem like the advantages of liquid hydrogen were only relevant in the early days of space travel, rather than beginning then and continuing through present day.
    Deleted "in the early days of the Space Race" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rocket engineers had to first overcome enormous technological challenges" Many of the engineering problems for these rockets were presumably difficult and it's not clear how the hydrogen tank issue was notably difficult relative to the other technical challenges. This could be shortened as added to the previous sentence, something like "A rocket utilizing liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel can theoretically lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than one with a conventional rocket fuel like kerosene, but this capability required new technology to be developed."
    It really was rocket science. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel, meaning that it assumes liquid form only at extremely low temperatures and therefore must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from evaporating or boiling." This states multiple times that liquid hydrogen must be very cold to remain a liquid. Since the boiling point is the temperature given, evaporation doesn't need to be mentioned, as that would happen in a colder environment. My take is "Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel that must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family: a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized, with the hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; there was no internal bracing and no insulation surrounding the propellants." The intro here makes it sound like there were multiple weight saving measures from the Atlas rockets, but then just lists one major feature, which was the unpressurized and unbraced fuel and oxygen tanks.
    It lists three: (1) a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized; (2) hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead; and (3) no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't #1 and #3 the same thing? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Centaur-G added insulation while retaining the pressurised steel shell. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It must therefore be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, particularly the rocket exhaust, atmospheric friction during flight through the atmosphere at high speeds and the radiant heat of the Sun." I would add that the hydrogen needs to be insulated from the relatively warming liquid oxygen. To keep the sentence from getting too long, I would remove the atmospheric friction phrase and instead link aerodynamic heating. Additionally, remove "particular" as that implies there are other significant but unmentioned sources of heat.
    Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tiny molecules of hydrogen can leak through microscopic holes". Per Dawson and Boles, it seems like the concern for a lack of insulation is the buildup of pressure as liquid hydrogen turned to a gas that necessitated venting (and thus the loss of hydrogen fuel). They make it sound like lost of hydrogen through microscopic holes was a design defect but not the primary issue with keeping hydrogen in liquid form, so I would mentioned the venting here regarding hydrogen loss once it boils.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paved the way" is figure of speech; maybe use "allowed" instead?
    Changed to "led to" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its use in the upper stages of the Saturn V Moon rocket and later by the Space Shuttle." This should link the upper stages that used liquid hydrogen. Additionally, the RS-25 engine's should be linked as well. "Moon" can be taken out, as that wasn't part of the name of the Saturn V.
    Linked. Removed Moon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This lists the Viking, Helios, and Viking missions as among the Titan III-Centaur missions, but as far as I can tell, they were the only successful launches for Titan-Centaur. Saying "including" makes it sound like there were other launches/missions that Titan-Centaur successfully supported.
    There was one unsuccessful mission as well, Sphinx (satellite). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that when I was looking up the Titan III-Centaur launch history; my point is that the paragraph comes across like those missions are some of the successful missions, when in fact they represent all of the successful missions. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Titan IIIE was viewed at the time to be the last expendable launch system; John Noble Wilford from The New York Times wrote that it was "expected to be the last new launching vehicle to be developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration until the advent of the reusable Space Shuttle which should be ready in 1978."" I know it's mentioned later in the article that this was viewed as the last uncrewed vehicle by James Beggs/NASA leadership; is there a quote/reference from them that could be used here? I know Wilford is a respected journalist, but since he was not a decision maker at NASA, I think it would make more sense to be referencing someone who was.
    Deleted this, as we have Begg's opinion later on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was hoped that the Galileo spacecraft would be able to make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route." Was there any research group hoping for this, or just JPL scientists? I would state who was hoping for the asteroid flyby.
    JPL. The idea arose naturally as they plotted a course to ensure that the spacecraft would not crash into an asteroid. I don't want to get in too deep here, so I have written: "In December 1984, Galileo project manager John R. Casani proposed that Galileo make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route.It would be the first time a US space mission visited an asteroid. NASA Administrator James M. Beggs endorsed the proposal as a secondary objective for Galileo." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " One such change was to allow the Milstar to have a direct connection with Centaur that would be separated using explosive bolts. This required additional testing." Is there any additional information about this testing, such as time or cost increases? If not, I would combine the sentences, since it's a short and abrupt sentence at the end of the section.
    All classified I'm afraid. Combined sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Lewis Research Center pointed out that Centaur provided four advantages over the IUS." How did the Lewis Center point this out? Was it a press release, Congressional testimony, discussion at a NASA meeting, etc.? I would state how it was communicated (such as "The Lewis Center released a statement of the four advantages that Centaur had over the IUS"), since it's not like the Lewis Center can be pointing out advantages like a person can in a conversation.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they had 25 times the Centaur's fuel" I'm not positive this is grammatically incorrect, but shouldn't this be "they had 25 times the amount of Centaur's fuel" instead?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, a total of $959 million (equivalent to $1935 million in 2019) had been spent with nothing to show for it." I would remove most of this, and tack on the overall cost to the previous sentence. While there wasn't a Shuttle-Centaur launch, the system was still developed and flight hardware was created, which I'm assuming also affected Centaur G development, not to mention all of the jobs and experience gained from the development, so I think "nothing to show for it" may be a little too harsh/not entirely accurate. Maybe something like, "Shutting down the project cost another $75 million (equivalent to $151 million in 2019), bringing the total program cost to $959 million."
    Deleted "with nothing to show for it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To this had to be added the cost of launching satellites and space probes by other means." I would remove this, since it falls outside of the scope of the Shuttle-Centaur programs, and will always be the case for retired/abandoned projects that leave a need to be filled.
    Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " most likely from vibration during overland transportation between the JPL and Kennedy Space Center three times or during the rough launch by the IUS" I would make this start with "likely from" or "potentially from" as I would only provide one option in the case of using "most likely" and this lists two.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Glenn Research Center display using Shuttle-specific hardware, or just the Centaur G Prime in general? If so, I would state that, since the mention of the Titan IV mission manager makes it seem like it wasn't about Shuttle-Centaur.
    This is uncertain. "One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997. The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article." [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Notes

References

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild & Hawkeye7, it generally looks good. Hawkeye, is there a reason you didn't add the date for 44, 58, 65, 79, and 104? And unless it's someone like Heppenheimer, where it's clear they go by initials, I'd recommend using full names; it can become a real pain trying to figure out who initialed authors are, so you may as well spare an interested reader that trouble. But initials are ultimately a point of preference, and assuming there is an intentional reason for not adding the dates, then I'm signed off on the source review. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't normally add dates for web pages, as not all of them have them. I've added them here (although one is a guess). In the case of academic papers, the authors are normally referred to in the form of their initials and surnames, that's all there is in the papers except an identification of the institution they work for, and often I don't have any way of finding out what the initials stand for. In the case of (for example) R. E. Martin, all I know is that they worked at General Dynamics in the early 1980s. The interested reader can find the paper simply by clicking on the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

Lead

Background

That takes me to "Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur", more to come. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to use...

This is a really good read. I'm up to "Preparations". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent piece of work, gets my support. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1&oldid=1027857746"