Talk:Space Shuttle

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

Design

Why is a single fuel tank used? Wouldn't performance have been increased by using two smaller fuel tanks and discarding one after another, much discarding the individual stages of a rocket one after another? Such an improvement in performance could have been used for making the area of the fuel tank(s) on the orbiter side safer. 85.176.110.198 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an engineer, nor do I work on space systems. That said, the most likely reason is mass. Two smaller tanks would require more than one large tank. Each SLWT (super light weight tank, the most modern version) is ~29.25 tons, with a volume of 541,763 gallons (pressurized) of liquid gaseous fuels. The paint was removed from the tanks to save 600 pounds (0.3 tons). Any additional mass is a direct loss of payload. Just the fittings for a tank (external hardware, orbiter attachment fittings, umbilical fittings, electrical and range safety system) are 4.1 tons, and the shuttle's payload capacity is only 17.69 tons with the SLWT (less with the older tanks), so a second tank would mean losing a minimum of ~1/4 of the payload of the shuttle. The Dark 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit to last - the payload I gave was for a mission to the ISS. Maximum payload is greater, but the shuttle is limited to lower orbits with higher payloads. The Dark 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not in the space program either. Granted, two tanks providing the same volume will be heavier than one but if half of that weight can be shed half way up, then perhaps the lifting capability would be better. For example if the total weight of the two (empty) tanks would be say 34 tons then the shuttle would weigh roughly 5 tons more on the launch pad. (Now I'm assuming it can still lift off with the extra weight but I should imagine it can since the lifting capability of a rocket is more about the weight it can put into whatever orbit, rather than if it will actually get off the ground.) So once half the fuel has been burnt the shuttle would shed 17 unnecessary tons and fly the rest of the way up with only one 17 ton tank instead lugging a 29 ton tank all the way up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.176.99.68 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, but even if it became lighter during the ascent phase, the additional 5 tons, along with the larger load of OMS and RCS fuel required for a higher orbit (~210 nautical miles) would still redure the payload capicity at liftoff.

Imagine if you filled an airplane so that it was at MTOW (max takeoff weight) and added an additional 5 tons. The airplane would not be able to get off the ground. Why? Because the airplane is overweight, and even if the extra 5 tons was jettisoned during the flight, it would not matter because it would not be able to get off the ground in the first place, because the engines don't produce enough thrust. It may not be the best example, but I hope it shows that even if the weight is reduced during the ascent phase, it dosen't matter because the shuttle probably wouldn't be able to get off of the ground, simply because the SSMEs and SRBs do not produce enough thrust to lift the additional weight.--206.193.252.13 (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a good analogy. The airplane in your example uses its propulsion to generate lift to leave the runway; the thrust necessary for that is far less than the weight of the aircraft. The space shuttle stack propulsion must generate more thrust than its take-off weight to leave the launch pad. As long as the generated thrust is greater than the weight of the stack, the shuttle will leave the pad. The shuttle stack usual take-off weight is about 2/3 the thrust, so it is accelerated vertically at about 1 G, or ~ 32 feet per second per second. Even if the take-off weight were increased by 1000 tons, the shuttle stack could leave the launch pad, but would be accelerated vertically at only about 0.04 G, or ~ 1.2 feet per second per second. That acceleration would be far too low for a number of reasons, but still, the stack could rise. A difference in take-off weight of 20 tons or so would be trivial at lift-off, but could be crucial in reaching orbit. Neonorange (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

"The airplane in your example uses its propulsion to generate lift to leave the runway" This statement is incorrect. In order for an airplane to maintain a sustained climb it must have an excess of thrust. For an aircraft in flight the lift is perpendicular to the direction of flight. The total force of lift is composed of two vectors. The vertical component of lift is equal to and opposite aircraft weight,and the rearward component of lift(induced drag) acts parallel and opposite the direction of flight. So in summary all this means is that an airplane does not climb due to excess lift. The cube square law can be used to explain why the Shuttle uses one large tanks instesd of two smaller tanks. This law states that area-to-volume ratio increases as the radius decreases. This means that one large tank has less surface area per volume than Two smaller tanks. Remember the space shuttle is an Orbiter. Placing it the correct orbit is paramount. being able to lift off means nothing if the desired orbit can't be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.206.8 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Word case "shuttle" or "Shuttle"?

There seem to be some confusion on whether the word should be upper or lower case in the body of the article; right now, there are about an equal number of each. I would think that, with a few exceptions, all should be upper case. Leon7 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's a proper name in this case. 68Kustom (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The craft's name is the proper noun (i.e. Atlantis). NASA's space shuttle page also seems to use lower case. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Convert

Hi everybody, I'd just like to let you all know that I've changed the unit values that were manually input with the {{convert}} template. EOZyo (мѕğ) 08:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Make sure to specify US spelling (sp=us) where the units are spelled out. I fixed some, but may not have gotten all of them. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you did exactly. In this article, the "mass" of the shuttle is given in lb and t; I was taught in university that lb is a unit of force and the English unit of mass is the slug; it is not clear if t is English ton or metric tonne. Wouldn't it be better, at least in science-related articles, to use primarily SI? Olde English units might be added in parentheses, but my preference is to completely eliminate them? The sooner they are lost and forgotten, the better. I will not presume to undertake this monumental task on my own, and certainly not without a policy statement from someone in authority. Onerock (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's Pound (mass) (lb or lbm), not Pound-force (lbf). Both sets of units should be listed per MOS:CONVERSIONS. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Post Mission activities???

This page has a very good description of launch / orbit / re-entry / landing procedures, but I have always wondered what happens to the shuttle after all that. I know it involves re-working the tiles, re-filling the srb's, getting a new ET and putting the whole thing together. If anyone in the know could write about the specifics I would be grateful and I think it would improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.182.253 (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I came looking for that too. Orbiter Processing Facility doesn't cover it either. What are the major tasks, elapsed times and even manpower requirements ? What parts are typically changed, replaced, refurbished ? Rod57 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more detail is needed there. One sentence about venting gasses on the SLF isn't enough. I found a nice reference from KSC PAO and added some good info in the article, remaining preparations info should probably go in the OPF article using the same PDF as a reference. I did notice that this reference is a bit dated in places but only in some minor details such as the use of the people mover for astronaut disembarking, they haven't used that in years.--RadioFan (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Slideshow?

I removed an external link to this Discovery Channel slideshow because, per WP:EL I do not see that it adds anything encyclopedic that the article would not contain if it was a featured article. Another user has restored the link. Is there a consensus here that the link should remain? --John (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The slideshow contains info and images this article does not have now. If this article were upgraded to an FA then the link would probably not add much. That's what I think. Don't care to argue about keeping it though. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed this link and think it is worthwhile;I used it as a reference and returned it to E/L. Fotaun (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Events" versus "Remarks" in mission list...

I'm hoping to prevent an edit war with Fnlayson by providing a convincing argument why my edits are the proper ones. My goal is to get consensus.

The sentence before the mission list chart reads: "Below is a list of major events in the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet." Based on this statement, I see that each "notable" mission is listed, and the event for which the mission is notable is placed in the "Event" column. Additional notes, including the mission number appear in the "Remarks" column.

I came to this page and noticed that mission STS-107 had the event "Earth science research mission" which was puzzling, as no other entry lists the nature of the mission unless the mission was regarding an important payload or event. Cases in point: mission STS-92 has its event as "100th Space Shuttle mission", and mission STS-30 has its event as "The first Space Shuttle mission to launch a space probe, Magellan." These cases seem very logical to me, and the entry for STS-107 seems very illogical: there was nothing notable about the Earth science research mission, itself; what is notable is that the shuttle "Disintegrated on re-entry".

I made this change, removing "Earth science research mission" and replacing it with "Disintegrated on re-entry", so that the entry looks very similar to the entry for STS-51-L, with its event "Disintegrated 73 seconds after launch" and its remark "STS-51-L, all seven crew members perished."

Subsequently, Fnlayson replaced the "Earth science research mission" event and modified the remark from "STS-107, All seven crew members perished." to "STS-107, Disintegrated on re-entry and all seven crew members perished." with the edit summary: "not the same as Challenger, performed a mission on orbit".

My argument against this is two-fold:

1. as indicated above, the event for which the mission was notable should appear in the "Event" column, and
2. while it is true that the STS-51-L never got its chance to complete its mission and STS-107 did, the listing of a mission is impertinant, per se, as otherwise, missions such as STS-92 would list the mission purpose ("International Space Station assembly") in the "Event" column and the fact that it was the 100th mission in the "Remarks" column.

I hope you'll agree. —  X  S  G  09:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I only added "Earth science research mission" back to the Columbia accident entry a couple times. Removing that seems to imply they did nothing on the mission. It's a different situation than the Challenger accident. In general major changes to articles ought to be mentioned on their talk pages beforehand. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that for the same reasons, I question whether the Enterprise's October 12, 1977 flight is notable enough for inclusion in the list. It is the first mission with the tail-cone off; if this is the reason why the mission is notable then it belongs in the "Event" field, and otherwise, the entry isn't really worth mentioning. —  X  S  G  09:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one has anything to say about this, I'll go ahead and make the change... —  X  S  G  01:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Page Needs Work!

I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? Radical Mallard (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (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/

Weights

The gross lift off weights mentioned in the article cannot be correct: If the Space swhuttle it self has 110 tons, the external tank has 756 tons and the bossters have 590 tons eacht, the gross liftoff weight would be 2046 tons overall, not the mentioned 2000 tons. --MrBurns (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors / paint

Article currently says: "At launch, it consists of a rust-colored external tank (ET), two white, slender Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), and the orbiter."
The ET was originally painted -- STS-1#External_tank:

"STS-1 was one of only two shuttle flights to have its External Tank (ET) painted white. In an effort to reduce the Shuttle's overall weight STS-3 and all subsequent missions used an unpainted tank, which translated into a weight savings of approximately 272 kg / 600 pounds. This lack of paint gives the ET its distinctive orange color now associated with the Space Shuttle."

-- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but NASA does not even agree on what color to call it. The NASA press release used above says "orange spray-on foam...". Another release I found says "rust-colored external tank". So I compromised and listed dark orange in the text. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Main engine

What is the point of the main engine? The solid rocket boosters are lighter, smaller, and far more powerful; why not let them do a little more work and eliminate (or drastically cut the size of) the external fuel tank? I'm sure there's an answer, but I can't find it, and it should probably be mentioned. 138.78.102.167 (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shuttle has 3 main engines. An SRB is not lighter and smaller than them. The SRBs act like a rocket stage. They separate after their fuel is expended so their remaining mass does not have to be carried. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, I confused thrust with work. The SRBs provide more thrust; however, they have a shorter burn time. (When I said they were lighter and smaller, I was comparing them to the external fuel tank, which is true). I'm still unclear on the reason to incorporate both liquid and solid rockets into a launch (if they're burning simultaneously, they are under similar conditions, and one must perform better than the other), but I fear the answer may not be as simple as I had hoped. I'll still be interested in an answer if someone's willing to give it, and I'll try to incorporate it into the article. (No need to talk down to me; I have a decent physics background, despite the earlier mistake.) 138.78.102.167 (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The shuttle is basically a tripropellant rocket.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The exhaust speed of the main engines is much higher. When you're down low, the vehicle is heavy and you want a lot of thrust and exhaust speed is a bit less important. When you're up high, you want to run with a hydrogen engine because, including the fuel and oxidiser, that's lighter and makes the lower stage stuff smaller. The main engines give high exhaust speed, but relatively low thrust, the SRBs give lots of thrust but a low exhaust speed. They're also cheaper to build. If they ran solid rockets all the way to orbit, the takeoff weight would be several times higher, and you would probably need three stages of solid rockets because of the lower exhaust speed. If they ran main engines all the way to orbit the vehicle would be physically much bigger (including the necessary propellant) and more expensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this mentioned in the article? If not, it'd make a great addition (with a citation). :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Space Shuttle/STS Segment/System

The first sentence is technically misleading. The STS is the system and includes a ground segment, a comm/orbital segment, and the Space Shuttle segment. The Space Shuttle segment includes the Orbiter element, SRB element, etc. I have modified appropriately with the word "part." HyperCapitalist (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your subsequrnt edit, STS-61-A was West German-funded. I'm not sure how best to work this in, if at all. Leads generally don't need sources as long as the info is cited in the main text, but I haven't checked to see if it covers this. You should be able to find sufficient cites in the STS-61-A article if you need them. - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the referenced article -- _payload_ operations for the mission were largely run out of Germany. This is entirely different than Shuttle operations. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw your change to this article, and while I think it is misleading (I don't believe the payload is considered part of the STS), I'll leave it for someone else to modify. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good point Shuttle operations vs. payloads ops. I reworded it to "The United States funded STS development and shuttle operations." I think it'd take another sentence to cover the payload operations but that probably doesn't belong in the Lead. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you could just say "STS development and operations" as the payload isn't part of the STS per http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Works for me! - BilCat (talk) 04:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. I included shuttle so it'd be more clear and maybe prevent unneeded wording changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SRB specs

Space Shuttle Wikipedia page: "Empty weight (per booster): 63,272 kg (139,490 lb)"

SRB booster Wikipedia page: "The inert weight of each SRB is approximately 200,000 lb (91,000 kg)."

Astronautix SRB page: "Empty Mass: 86,183 kg (190,000 lb)." http://www.astronautix.com/stages/shulesrb.htm

NASA page about the SRB: "The inert weight of each SRB is approximately 192,000 pounds." http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/srb/srb.html

posted by gaetano marano Oct. 30, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.106.185 (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Go ahead and make it so. It's okay to get your hands dirty and fix stuff. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the changes you've made aren't right... the exact data are in the NASA page linked above

- SRB weight approximately 1,300,000 pounds at launch

- propellant weight of the SRB approximately 1,100,000 pounds

- inert weight of the SRB approximately 192,000 pounds

- peak thrust (sea level) approximately 3,300,000 pounds at launch

posted by gaetano marano Oct. 31, 2009—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.110.211 (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The SRB data was corrected and cited. Note that there has been about 3 different weight SRB motor cases and the current one is the medium weight one. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

the SRBs can be changed on some points but NOT in their weight since they are made with the SAME rings built decades ago and reused several times

however, the most recent NASA page (and data) about the SRB is here: http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

so, the current SRB Stats are:

Thrust at lift-off: 2,650,000 pounds

Propellant Properties: 16% Atomized aluminum powder (fuel) 69.8% Ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer) .2% Iron oxide powder (catalyst) 12% Polybutadiene acrylic acid acrylonite (binder) 2% Epoxy curing agent

Weight Empty mass: 193,000 pounds

Propellant mass: 1,107,000 pounds

Gross lift-off mass: 1,300,000 pounds

please note that the SRB lift-off thrust is lower than the (3.3Mlbs) peak thrust since the SRB reach the peak about 20 seconds after lift-off

posted by gaetano marano Oct. 31, 2009 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.221.31.194 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to repeat data. On the medium weight case, the walls are only 0.002-0.004 inches thinner than on the original heavy weight case. Propellant and other specific details really belong at Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster instead of this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SRB thrust

The SRB sea-level liftoff thrust is about 2.8 million lbf (12.5 MN), as measured from actual flight data of STS-107 and published in the Columbia Accident Investigation Report. To my knowledge there is no flying "high performance" RSRM. There have been various proposals for upgraded SRMs such as the ASRM and Filiment-Wound SRB (FWSRB), however none actually flew. We must use consistent numbers throughout this and other related articles. It's confusing and inconsistent to state different thrust numbers for the same item.

The various thrust specs given by different references are typically non-specific: they don't state whether sea level or vacuum thrust, liftoff or peak thrust, momentary vs average thrust, etc. The highest reliability numbers are from actual measurement, and from STS-107 we have the SRB thrust graph, which is in Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster.

If there has somehow been an SRB performance upgrade since STS-107, before using it in any article we'll need an authoritative reference, including whether it's sea level vs vacuum thrust, average vs peak thrust, a specification vs a measured value, etc. Joema (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I referenced the source for that (ref. 24). 3 Mlb is the thrust in a vacuum for the high-performance motor SRB used starting with STS-8. You need to reference the 2.8 Mlb value in that line since it is different. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

---

the data I give here don't come from "different references" but directly from the MOST "authoritative reference": NASA

so, the RIGHT specs for the SRB to put in the Space Shuttle (and in the SRB) page are:

Peak thrust: 3,300,000 pounds

Empty mass: 193,000 pounds (87,543 kg.)

Propellant mass: 1,107,000 pounds (502,127 kg.)

Gross lift-off mass: 1,300,000 pounds (589,670 kg.)

given the source (NASA) any further dispute about these data seems silly

posted by gaetano marano Nov. 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.102.8 (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope that, at least, things like the "SRB mass" don't become a "religion's war"

the right data come from the N A S A websites, so, please change them in the article, without insist to leave your wrong data!

posted Nov. 7, 2009 by gaetano marano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.107.72 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you even look at Reference 26?? That's a NASA report. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, it's a 1990's document (but the content and the images look much older, from a pre-computer era...) while, the NASA link posted below, has been "Last Updated in March 5, 2006"

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html

posted by gaetano marano Nov. 7, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.220.206.66 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What significant changes to the SRB that would noticeably change its weight have been done since the post-Challenger accident redesign in late 1980s? That report gives exact numbers and has been checked/reviewed as part of it being released, while the web page probably has not been. (See peer review content at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship.) Try signing your posts with 4 tildas (. ~~~~). -Fnlayson (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Total launches - 129 Successes - 128 ? Really?

Because Columbia wasn't a *launch* failure, right? This is deceptive..88.159.72.240 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The failure that caused the loss of the vehicle on STS-107 (ie. the foam strike) occurred during launch. Optus B2 is considered a launch failure for the same reason. STS-51-F was a partial failure. --GW… 22:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletions by lazy members

HELLO EVERYONE!

Here's some information for the Space Shuttle page, only a couple of snobs on here named Andy120290 and BilCat are trying to cause trouble by constantly deleting it.

Number of vehicles=5

 Atlantis
 Challenger (Destroyed)
 Columbia (Destroyed)
 Discovery
 Endeavor  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.217.9 (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 

These editors aren't "lazy," they've been trying to get you to stop because where you were adding the material, it doesn't fit. It's nothing personal, I assure you. Dayewalker (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The template does not have those fields (see Template:Infobox rocket). The orbiters are listed at least twice in the text of the article plus in the navigation box at the bottom. Also in a table at Space Shuttle orbiter. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify something about SSME ignition

I THINK this is a change that should be made, but I do not have knowledge of the SSME ignition process sufficient to be sure it should be made. In the paragraph that describes the SSME ignition at T-minus 6.6 seconds, there is a description of steam shooting "southward" and flames shooting "northward". I think that this is incorrect terminology-- it should be "downward" (i.e., toward the center earth) and "upward" (away from the center of the earth). That is, unless these things actually do shoot north/southward across the earth's surface toward the north/south poles. This always drives me nuts when people use "north" and "south" incorrectly like this in conversation. 99.92.91.126 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)migP

price tag

how much does a shuttle cost space travel for trading with other worlds has just been created on simcountry simcountry base price tag 150B at a production rate of 1 a year with price change of 30% up or 30% down hopefully it will do better than say a cruise missile ship or a carrier

Payload to LEO

Need to list the changes in its capacity as the Shuttle Program shifted to using lighter external tanks.--Craigboy (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Holds

What is the purpose of the "holds"? If they know the launch will be longer than the "time remaining" listed, why not just incorporate that into the time (actually LIST Time Remaining as say, 29:00 instead of 9:00 and stopping at 9:00?) TyVulpine (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Spaceplanes

This article could use a reference or mention to modern competitors of the Space Shuttle, especially since it is about to be retired. The U.K. and ESA's Skylon proposal was the example I gave, but it was reverted pending consensus. What do you think?--Novus Orator 07:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No direct connection and not similar. The Shuttle is not a single stage to orbit spaceplane/launch vehicle. NASA/US replacement craft for the Shuttle are already covered in the Retirement and legacy section. -fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a requirement for the mentioned spaceplanes/orbiters to be made in the United States. As long as they have a similar purpose (e.g. Space Station resupply, Satellite launch...etc) and are connected in some way to the Space Shuttle (My example (Skylon) was actually developed out of the British Government's Space Shuttle idea, the HOTOL) then we need to include them or risk U.S. centric Systematic bias in the article. Since that section is about concepts that will replace and or improve on the Space Shuttle, it makes sense that they actually feature something that improves over the original design in some way (in this example, being single-stage to orbit). Saying we can't include Commercial proposals seems odd given that President Obama has replaced the Space Shuttle's resupply job with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation's commercial bids. Do you agree?--Novus Orator 02:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It really should be relevant to the Space Shuttle to be mentioned in this article. The Shuttle replacements and shuttle-based space vehicles are relevant. Current spaceplanes and space vehicles with connections to the Shuttle are probably relevant. -fnlayson (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson. The Skylon proposal is neither similar nor appropriate for the technology transfer section unless there is a clear link with the shuttle.

There is a US centric bias in the article. There should be such a bias, as the Space Shuttle is a US program. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation are appropriately mentioned as they are direct successors to a portion of the Shuttle functionality.

If there is a page that is a list of space programs then a single link in the See Also section would be appropriate. It is not appropriate for us to put links to all programs in the article. If we do where do we stop? What stage of the development process must a program reach before being listed? Is it removed from the list once it is no longer moving forward? These and many other questions would need to be discussed and consensus reached prior to adding such listings.

A link to a page with a list of next generation orbiters would be very appropriate in the "next generation orbiters" section. A very brief (single paragraph with only a few sentences) mention of the different general concept directions that next generation orbiters are taking would be reasonable. Makyen (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay...Sounds good. I put my content in the more generic article Spaceplane which could probably be that link you are talking about...--Novus Orator 04:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Most Complex Machine

Just deleted this unsubstantiated statement. There are many more complex machines built by humans, such as the Large Hadron Collider.76.176.111.49 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Not to mention the standard office photocopier - still incapable of working for a month without breaking down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

End of Program

Are the main editors on this page thinking about writting about the end of the shuttle program? In particular, I think it would be of historical interest to compare the shuttle and the Saturn V. It seems like both programs were almost perfected and then shut down. Any re-tooling references would be interesting: Learn from mistakes, but keep the basic design in production. Boeing is doing something like that with the 737 (model ?) and it's a big commerical success. Bridgettttttte_babble^poop 11:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are no "main editors" per se, but I think you have some neat ideas. If you are interested in this area I recommend this page. Fotaun (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

museums vying for an orbiter

Note: I'm moving this from my talk page so that others may participate in the discussion--RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I recently undid your omission of the Brazos Valley Museum of Science and History to the list of potential locations for a space shuttle after they are retired. I have worked closely in the past with the Brazos Valley Shuttle Project and I know, for a fact, that they are a strong contender. As I understand things, and this is coming from some very high places, the College Station location is preferred over some otherwise prominent and "expected" locations.

1) They have the necessary infrastructure. The museum location is about 1/4 mile from the airport. 2) They have the finances. 3) They will located on the campus of Texas A&M University (soon to be the home of the Shuttle Motion Simulator which will also be in that museum) 4) They have the support of President GHW Bush, over half the state of Texas, many schools and school service centers in Texas, numerous government officials, NASA employees, and more than a few astronauts (albeit unofficial from the active astronauts) 5) They were recently asked by NASA to begin collecting material to "tell the story" of the space shuttle. 6) Other significant reasons that I am unable to mention, being bound by NDA terms.

Whether you agree with their participation in the shuttle retirement selection process is irrelevant. You are not qualified to decide which organizations are, and are not under serious consideration for selection. You personal opinion is irrelevant and, in the adhering to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, I would advise against expressing bias towards any particular location.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper please (talk • contribs) 01:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, by the fact that you are close enough to the subject to be under an NDA, you likely have a conflict of interest and should avoid on this subject. Secondly, there only coverage of this produced so far has been from the local papers, and a LA Times article covering the fact that the museum wants an orbiter. The fact of the matter is that lots of museums want an orbiter and not all of them are listed here. I know you are a new editor, please read the welcome information on your talk page , it has some great tips and help, but I still find it odd that someone who claims to be close to the situation didn't get the name of the museum right. Just sayin'.--RadioFan (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I researched them several months ago for a paper I am putting together which will document the retirement process. First, The Museum's name is correct. The Brazos Valley Museum of Natural History is moving to a new building and will be re-named the Brazos Valley Museum of Science and History. Second, "there" refers to a location, "their" is possessive and should be used when referring to their coverage. Third, media coverage has absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of a competitor. Fourth, the NDA I am bound by limits what I can repeat about their RFI submission, what as-yet-unnammed supporters they have, and whom within NASA they are in regular contact with. Fifth, I have no conflict of interest as I am not a member of their organization, I do not represent their views, and am generally unaffiliated with them in any way. I have researched several of the other organizations and am thus uniquely qualified to comment on this subject. Whether you agree with their participation or accept their legitimacy is, as I said, irrelevant. In fact, their RFI submission was accepted. The criteria which will decide the locations for the Space Shuttles have never been publicly disclosed. Therefore, I would challenge your right to determine who may, and who may not be represented on a list of potential locations unless you can prove that some locations are vastly more qualified than others by a quantitative analysis using those as yet unpublished criteria.Piper please (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

With Wikipedia we err on the side of caution, if there is no official list of candidates, and here we'll have to be very strict what is official, as in from NASA or something, then we just shouldn't include any list. Wikipedia is not a news outlet we have no obligation to report things until they've happened and then we can document them. This is an encyclopedia, so we have the luxury of waiting until we get official lists instead of speculations. — raekyt 03:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Raeky has it right here. The list of museums should be removed. It's just going to create contention until something more official is available. --RadioFan (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to see a complete list published by NASA, but I have been told that it absolutely will not happen; even after the locations are made public. Wikipedia should remain encyclopedic and, thus, the museum list should be removed until the recipients are made public.Piper please (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Just today at the STS-133 post landing conference it was stated by NASA that no official announcement has been made on where Discovery is going. So maybe it shouldn't say that it is promised to the smithsonian. I'm adding a citation needed note to that line. (I've seen plenty of stories that say it is going there but when asked by CBS specifically if an announcement had been missed it was stated that there was no official announcement yet.) 68.102.171.147 (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Uniform Patches

I have just uploaded a number of scans of Space Shuttle patches I bought from the Rockwell Surplus Store in El Segundo CA. Many years ago. One of the patches is for the Discovery flight carrying Bobko- Williams-Seddon-Griggs & Hoffman. The patch shows the craft name as Challenger. Was there a last minute change in this mission or was this a patch manufacturing error? You can see the scans by searching the Wikipedia Commons upload database with the term "Space Shuttle Patch" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fncurtis (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pace_Shuttle_Patch_Bobko-Williams1.jpg

Images of these patches are available on NASA's website, including the one you have for the cancelled mission STS-51-E (see this NASA image).. this mission later became STS-51-D. Mlm42 (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Prose is sometimes better than a list

• The Fleet history section could be turned into prose, and maybe converted into a "Program history", with a {{main}} link to the Space Shuttle program.

• The Technical data section is not very appealing. Maybe it would be better to move the orbiter information into the Space Shuttle orbiter article (unless it's already there), and convert the rest into prose.

I hope to make these changes at some point; I thought I'd record my intentions here anyway. Mlm42 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The technical data section should remain as it is. Other than that, I agree. --Nat682 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it should remain, rather than converting it into prose? Mlm42 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a table of specs. Parts of that are probably covered in the the text already. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I am planning to do a complete revision of the whole article to improve its quality and quantity, with the anticipation of making it a FA before STS-135 flies, so I think both sections would be trimmed down later on (the listing of missions in the fleet history section is rather arbitary and probably unneeded, while many listings on the technical data section would fit better in the individual articles of the components (Orbiter, SRB, ET, avionics, SSME etc.) than in an introductory article. With most of the listings being removed later, any remaining parts can be stated in prose format. So, if you have any comments on how this should be done, please answer in my user page, or by editing my sandbox at here: User:Galactic Penguin SST/Space Shuttle‎. Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good plan. I suggest going for GA status, then FA. Best of luck with the rewrite. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest small improvements to the current page before proceeding with anything dramatic. Fotaun (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, and I'd rather the changes be discussed on this talk page, rather than on a user subpage. I'm definitely interested in helping out with improving this article. Mlm42 (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Well I agree with many of your sentiments and look forward to these improvements, especially the new sections. Fotaun (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Heh... that's why instead of working on the article alone, I came here to ask for other's help. ;)

Given the limited time I have, I would work in small steps anyway. Besides, given that my experience on Wiki is close to nil (I would classify myself as a wiki-0 editor lol.), I would probably post any suggestions for improvement, so that you would not miss anything in the process. Please standby for more news on this. :) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)