Talk:Space Shuttle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Enterprise - A "Prototype"?

Is it right to call Enterprise a "prototype"? It was more like a test-bed airframe than anything resembling a full-fledged shuttle.

Calling it a prototype is pretty much wrong. Also, the entire section on orbiters built which was recently added from scratch is already included in the Space Shuttle program article in an expanded and more accurate form. Cjosefy 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about average cost per launch? There is a lot of hydrogen and oxygen being combusted... 24.84.146.5 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Orbiter flags?

Each of the orbiters apparently has its own flag — see Space Shuttle Flags (U.S.). The Atlantis flag was flown at its launch this morning near the countdown clock, under the U.S. flag, for example. It would be great to document these here, if anyone can come up with usable images. --ScottMainwaring 17:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you can see all different modifications also according to STS-XX:

http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/REFERENCE.html Greetings from the old europe

partial failures??

What are the two partial failures listed in the statistics box —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.21.45 (talk • contribs) .

If you look at the box in the edit window you'll see a note that states the partial failures are STS-51-F & STS-93. GW Simulations has done a good job noting these partial failures. If you go to the page for each mission, you should see what exactly happened to make them partial failures. Cjosefy 14:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA Is Going To Do Away With the Shuttle Class

I went to a fair yesterday and there was a woman there working with the Missouri NASA program. She mentioned it will be removed in 2010 for a brand new type of space shuttle powered entirely by solar rays. I feel this should be added.

The replacement is not a space shuttle, its a space capsule. Like the apollo or soyuz capsule. (Se orion for more information). "Powered by solar rays" is not that noteworthy, since the soyuz capsule is also powered by "solar rays" (usually one say that solar cells provide electric power - unlike the space shuttle that uses the more advanced fuel cell technology)).

Current Event tags

This countdown tag is absolutely unnecessary, it adds nothing of value to the article, and contributes to tag litter.

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

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

People may be trying to look up the specific shuttle mission, which was included in this tag, and would be a little more difficult to find otherwise. I will put a link at the top of the page until we decide what to do. --Falconus|Talk 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary: rv - see discussion - tags. What discussion? You didn't let us discuss it before you carried out the action.

Regardless of this I am opposed to your action as the Shuttle is not an event, it is an object. It is a mistake to conflate the Shuttle with Christmas, because Christmas-related events are generally predictable, whereas spaceflights are extremly unpredictable. Christmas happens right on que every year, Shuttle flights are often delayed.--GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that --Falconus|Talk 23:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If we have no more votes in favour of keeping it off, I'll replace it at 23:45 GMT. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As you requested, I've seen this discussion. It's still not changed my mind - that template is inappropriate and ugly. There is no actual reference to the mission in this article, no "details" which are liable to "change dramatically". It's simply wasting space and looking overly dramatic for no reason. Shimgray | talk | 01:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Shuttle is flying, and whilst there may not be any direct reference to STS-116, however it is important to note that this article, and also, if not moreso, Space Shuttle program will be affected by it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see both sides to this; on one hand, little info is likely to be changed on this page or the Space Shuttle program page. On the other, the missions are probably the most critical part of the program. I could see a compromise where we just state, at the top, that this shuttle is going to launch, and link to the mission page - that would get rid of the "inappropriate and ugly" template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falconus (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Not a bad idea. I've replaced it with a headnote. Not the optimal solution, but better than nothing. Shimgray | talk | 01:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As the template was deleted off the Space Shuttle program page as well, I shall go ahead and put a headnote there as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falconus (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

(reindent) How will it be affected? We'll change a couple of statistics. This is no more a "current event" issue than any of the other thousands of articles which get updated on a regular, ongoing, low-level basis. This article isn't about the mission, it doesn't discuss the mission, it doesn't have a section on the mission. Barring unexpected events, there is no way this article will change in any substantial way due to this mission, and as such a tag like this is just inappropriate. Shimgray | talk | 01:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Disscuss at Talk:Space Shuttle program --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

orbiters wings

is the orbiters wings really made of sticky tape and staples?Colsmeghead 00:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Err... no. The orbiter structure is made up of mostly aluminium alloy, but the engine thrust structure is made primarily from titanium alloy. Sticky tape and staples would desintigrate on reentry. Vsst 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Time frames

The article omits the time frames for both liftoff and landing. How long does it take from ignition until the shuttle reaches the atmosphere and how long is it from the start of the landing procedure until the shuttle is on the ground? fuzzy 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From SRB ignition to MECO in orbit is around eight minutes. Colds7ream 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere on the nasa.gov website there's a good source to cite for this. I think it was in the context of describing the various abort modes, e.g. a transatlantic landing attempt when one engine cuts out in a certain interval, etc. Really the entire launch sequence (including contingencies) is noteworthy enough to deserve coverage! (Sdsds - Talk) 23:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Landing

When landing, the drag chute does not deploy after the nose gear touches down. It instead deploys after the main gear have touched down, but before the nose gear touches down. Check out any videos of the shuttle landing. Unlike most aircraft, the shuttles nose gear stays up in the air longer than normal. Also, the drag chute was not always used. Due to the brakes becoming too hot when landing the drag chute was added. 158.147.103.169 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are four chute deploy modes: 'early chute', 'nominal chute', 'late chute' and 'no chute'. Early means the chute is deployed just after main gear touchdown, nominal means deployment after nose gear touchdown, late - deployment after initial deceleration. I`ll look for information about velocity at which the chute is deployed in 'late' mode.

I changed the 'landing' section today to mention possible different drag chute deployment modes but someone changed it again. If somebody thinks the chute can only be deployed after main gear touchdown have a look at this: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/STS-76/Small/EC96-43494-2.jpg http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/lores/sts116-s-071.jpg http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-94/lores/sts094-s-016.jpg http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-73/lores/sts073-s-048.jpg Vodmor 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To say that there are 4 different chute deploy modes isn't quite accurate. There aren't really any "modes." The chute is deployed manually by the pilot (via push buttons) when the commander directs him/her to, so there is no mode to select, but there are the methods you mentioned. When the drag chute is deployed, it is first in a smaller reefed configuration and then opens to a larger disreefed configuration. The intent of nominal deploy (which is soon after main gear touchdown) is to have the chute disreef (meaning its already deployed and opened in the reefed config) just before nose gear touchdown. Early deploy (used in the case of landing on a shorter emergency runway, if that ever were to happen) means after main gear touchdown but before nominal deploy. Late deploy (would be used in a low energy case since you don't want to derotate at too low of an airspeed) means after nose gear touchdown.

Above you say, "If somebody thinks the chute can only be deployed after main gear touchdown have a look at this:" Since all the pics you link to show the main gears already down, I assume you meant to say that nose gear touchdown. Either way, the chute is never to be deployed until after main gear touchdown, though there is nothing in the system stopping it from being deployed at any time. If the deploy command is given at 10,000 ft, then the chute will deploy at 10,000 ft (and then very quickly be ripped off - the linkage attaching it to the vehicle is meant to fail above a certain force to protect from this situation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk • contribs)

On another note, the chute does not have to be used even if it was already added to the shuttle. STS-88 did not use the chute because of a very low landing weight.--206.193.252.13 (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Official depictions

From the page on [[1]], currecy of Northern Ireland has a '5 pound polymer note featuring the U.S. space shuttle'. It appears to be a general-circulation note, not a symbolic or commemorative issue. Identity0 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Spaceworthy"

The article Space Shuttle Columbia says that it was the first "spaceworthy" space shuttle.

What is the meaning of this word in the context of space shuttles? --Amir E. Aharoni 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Going up into space, surviving in space, and coming back in one piece is how I take it. Enterprise was built without a functioning heat shield, and therefore would have burned up on reentry should it have gone up into space. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's derived from the old maritime term "seaworthy". You can have a ship which is mechanically sound but not properly equipped for a sea voyage. Likewise Enterprise flew within the atmosphere during early control tests, but was not equipped for space, hence not "spaceworthy". Joema 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

More on safety record and the scandals

I'd like to see more on the reliability and safety problems of the program. I'd also like to see more on the administrative problems that have plagued the program. There is a lot of this in the Richard Feinman report that you can find at the end of the most recent book on him. I'd happily contribute but I'd appreciate it if someone else took the first crack at it. Reboot 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ET orange or brown?

In this edit, I wrote "brown external tank". A subsequent edit changed that to "orange external tank".

Imho, calling the ET color "orange" or "brown" is both reasonable. The ET section in fact says "orange-brown color". But in the photo on the article's top right, the bright SRB exhaust made exposure time short, which means the rest of the picture looks darker than normal--specifically, the ET looks dark-brown. It's strange to talk about orange things if the picture doesn't show them clearly. So I'm reverting to "brown" if you don't mind. --193.99.145.162 11:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we compromise and call it rust-colored like it says in the external tank article? Andy120290 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Most references describe the ET color simply as "orange". The CAIB focused extensively on the ET insulation, which caused the Columbia disaster. The CAIB also described the color as "orange". A quick google search shows the ET is described as orange approx 20x more frequently than brown. In general Wikipedia naming conventions say use the most common term. Joema 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

If the reason we say "brown" is the picture, let's find a better picture. This is completely doable. There have been what, 100+ launches? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicely resolved. Kudos. --193.99.145.162 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do astronuts need passports to re-enter the United States?

As of January 23, 2007 citizens of the United States must present a passport to enter the United States when arriving by air. Do astronuts need passports to re-enter the United States? What if they visited the ISS? Ewlyahoocom 02:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The astronauts do not carry their passports on board. I suppose one could argue they never really left the United States, since they never really entered another country. anonymous6494 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an astronaut assigned to crew retrieval if the Shuttle has to abort to a landing or bail out in another country. He or she has all the crew's passports and travels to the country concerned if needed. AJKGordon 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleet history

There is nothing SO SPECIAL on the flights STS-121, STS-117 and STS-118 to be listed on this table.

Shuttle Patch.svg image

The thumbnail of Image:Shuttle Patch.svg in this article does not display in either Firefox or Internet Explorer. --82.4.221.60 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reentry process explanation/clarification.

The roll angle of the shuttle, changed in the s-turns are not made to create drag, as the article seems to imply, their purpose is to reduce lift (and have a second effect on drag control also), which is better explained here: [2] nihil 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

The shuttle program has been plagued with controversies, criticisms, and general incompetence. The latest drunk astronaut story made me wonder why this article has no criticisms section?

Well I suppose those sorts of political things really belong in the article about the program itself, but what about the criticisms of the core shuttle and its technology itself? Very high cost of launches, nightmare of maintenance between launches, lots of costly obsolete technology which can't be replaced due to the rigid design of systems, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.71.104 (talk • contribs)

Because this goes under the Space Shuttle program article, and not this one which is about the system itself. nihil 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But the system itself has often been criticized as one of the bigger engineering boondoggles, and an article on a system known for it's shortcomings should include this. Between the CPU, the heat tiles, loose foam, and the maintenance issues it seems that this this system is open to lots of critique from an engineering persepective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 01:29, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

We already have some criticism from an engineering standpoint in Criticism of the Space Shuttle program#Design issues. As always, if you can cite it, say it. If we need to reengineer that section a little, then by all means, let's reengineer it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Landing sites

There are a few sites on the web that list emergency landing sites for the shuttle such as http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm and http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0278.shtml. However the only information I can find on the NASA site only mentions three in Europe (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/tal_sites.html). I wonder is there a more official list of the landing sites. Moyda 17:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You might try this [3]. I don't know how current that is. There is an official list, it is carried on board in a book called Landing Site Charts as well as in a computer program, but googling for the book turned up nothing. anonymous6494 02:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Did a bit of cleanup

Folks, keep in mind that section 0 is the summary, which shouldn't be cluttered with details.

• Removed section 0 remark that ET formerly was white. That's nicely discussed in section "Upgrades". The summary is not the place where you mention every last exception that occurred 25 years ago.
• Simplified the section 0 sentence about crew size and put the detailed discussion in under "Technical data".
• Cleaned up crew size discussion in section "Technical data": "Co-pilot" was nonsense, I looked at each of the 119 mission articles and never saw the role of "co-pilot". "Eight" as crew size is also bad since that occurred only on 1.5 missions.

--193.99.145.162 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That "eight" and "co-pilot" were added in the edit in #Hoodwinked by a vandal? below. They were vandalism too. Gene Nygaard 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoodwinked by a vandal?

It appears to me that there is some longstanding vandalism which has gone undetected.

On 11 June 2007 (UTC) in this edit User:Dink87522 changed several numbers, with the edit summary "Removed vandalism". Dink87522 is an editor who only contributed for a couple of months (once considerably before that) and disappeared, and curiously User talk:Dink87522 is a redlink, apparently even the Welcome Wagon folks never even got to him.

But when User:Dink87522 "Removed vandalism" this was:

1. Done in the next edit immediately after User:MartinBot had reverted vandalism with the summary "BOT - rv 24.210.155.64 (talk) to last version by Wizzy"
2. Did not comport with any prior version I can find.
3. Changed some numbers that had been consistent going way back to 2001, surviving the original cut and paste move of "Space Shuttle" to "Space Shuttle Program", as well as the later splitting of a part of "Space Shuttle Program" back into this current "Space Shuttle" article.
4. Often made random changes to both converted an unconverted number, where the conversion was correct before Dink87522 edit (153.8 ft = 46.9 m) and incorrect afterwards (156.8 ft ≠ 48.9 m).

For the information that is still here, I am changing the numbers back to what it said before User:Dink87522 "Removed vandalism".

1. We can deal with formatting and precision issues after restoring the changed numbers, I'll help with that, I'm putting them the way they were for now
2. I didn't do anything with "seven" vs. "eight" crew because there is a recent edit on that
3. Someone should double-check these numbers.

A citation to sources (especially a general source for the Space Shuttle#Technical data section, would help not only in verifying it now, but keep us from getting caught with our pants down again in the future. Gene Nygaard 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that in one case the conversion was incorrect before the vandalism, and had been so for a while. Since 25,404 ft/s actually equals 7,743 m/s, I'd guess that the 7,643 was either miscopied when originally put there else subject to earlier vandalism. But these numbers should also set off some red flags for their precision, so a reliable source for that number would be especially useful. Gene Nygaard 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The original velocity posted 14 Nov 2001 didn't have either feet per second or meters per second, just " Velocity: 27,875 kph (17,321 mph)", numbers which remained until Dink87522's edit. So the 7,643 should have been 7,743, and it was here that way by the time this was split from Space Shuttle Program. That 27,875 km/h = 7743+ m/s = 25,404 ft/s, but probably not to that precision. Gene Nygaard 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Countdown procedure

We should have an equivalent of this German wikipedia article: de:Countdown (Space_Shuttle). I have no time right now to do it, so this is just in case I forget :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

L/D ratio (glide angle)

I reluctantly removed the reference to the glide ratio of the shuttle being 1:1 in the atmosphere.

The trouble is, it's not in general true, and it's not a reliable source to use a simplified source intended for children here.

A glide ratio of 1:1 implies a 1:1 L/D ratio, but such an aircraft cannot be safely landed (by humans anyway, and the Shuttle is designed for human control during landing); so at low speeds it is higher than this; I'm pretty sure it's more like 4 or 5 at landing speeds. I found one reference that said the glide angle at approach is 22 degrees, that's not a 1:1 glide ratio.

At high speeds when it's belly-flopping through atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, then yeah, 1:1 is about right, but as it slows and resumes a more normal attitude the drag reduces an enormous degree, and the craft then flies far more normally. Can anyone find a good reference for the glide ratios at different points in the flight? It's not just one number.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One document shows the shuttle L/D ratio varies from about 2.0 at subsonic speeds to about 1.0 at hypersonic speeds. The L/D curve can be seen on page 114, figure 1 of this pdf document: Space Shuttle Technical Conference, 1983, part 1. OTOH the same document shows a subsonic L/D of 4:1 on page 258, figure 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joema (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Added! Many tx.- (User) WolfKeeper - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image - on the pad or flying?

STS-120 rises from LC-39A October 28, 2007.

Considering AzaToth recently changed the image to one showing Discovery approaching the ISS, vs. the previous image showing Atlantis on the pad in launch configuration, it brings the question - how should we show the shuttle on this page?

I personally would rather see the shuttle in launch configuration, as this article is about the system as a whole, not just the orbiter. We already have articles about the individual components (ET, SRBs, Orbiter), and thus why I support an image here showing all three together.

Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the infobox image should show all three STS components (orbiter, ET, SRBs). But it would be nice for the image to be more dynamic, i.e. show some action. Could we use a picture of a shuttle stack during initial ascent, that shows the distinct SRB and SSME exhaust plumes? (sdsds - talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

While I do like the image AzaToth added, I too, agree that it is more appropriate to show the entire vehicle's structures, and also agree with Sdsds that "action" shots would be great. To this end, I propose using the image to the right, of the most recent launch. This accomplishes both goals, and also keeps the image somewhat standard to the images in the infoboxes of each individual shuttle article. Ariel♥Gold 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the image, and it also appears to address the way that photo of Atlantis on the pad ended up there. That pad photo of Atlantis went up there because people were editing the article regarding the color of the external tank, since the photo made the tank appear dark brown. This one has that problem, but to a far lesser extent. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OME vs. OMS

In the "fact sheet" portion of this article, it says, "Engines 2 OME". Shouldn't that be OMS? The text "OME" links to an article about OMS and there isn't any other mention of OME in either article. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe OME was some non-standard abbreviation for "orbital manuevering engine"? Then each orbiter has "2 OME, but just one OMS". I support changing the infobox to read, "2 (OMS)" or some such. (sdsds - talk) 15:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Link is swindle

Track the Shuttle with Google Maps - Link is just fraud. Earning money with google ads (Link is currently deleted). I hope this stays so. Links is from "Tom Mangan's Fun With Google Maps" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.106.235.53 (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxiumum payload

Has there ever been a mission where maximum payload was necessary? 84.173.246.66 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ASAT

the asat page says all kinds of interesting stuff about the orbiter but I noticed there is very little military history on this page. specifically they say a lazer was fired at it by the USSR in 1984, and other discussions of the orbiter possibly being used as an offensive weapon. Does anyone know if these claims are at all true or not? I would love to hear more about these issues especially because I find it odd that there is so little on this page about the cold war aspect of the shuttle (as great as it is now) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see almost nothing on the ASAT page regarding the Space Shuttle. There is little offensive capability of the Shuttle that isn't achieved in ICBMs and/or Nuclear Bombers... not sure what you are getting at here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Testing resumed in 1976 as a result of the US work on the Space Shuttle. Elements within the Soviet space industry convinced Leonid Brezhnev that the Shuttle was a single-orbit weapon that would be launched from Vandenberg, maneuver to avoid existing anti-ballistic missile sites, bomb Moscow in a first strike, and then land." and also from the Terra-3 WP- "On 10 October 1984, Soviet Minister of Defence Dmitry Ustinov ordered the Terra-3 complex to fire a warning shot at the shuttle Challenger, in response to the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative plans announced a year earlier, and the continued military use of the shuttle. (italics mine) Even though the shuttle was illuminated with a low-power laser, it caused malfunctions to on-board equipment and discomfort (possibly even temporary blinding) of the crew." so anyways who knows, but I do know that during the cold war MUCH of the orbiters mission was DoD related, and I think maybe someday the article could explain that a little more thoroughly. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Junk link

The first external link, "Space Shuttle Video via Shuttlesource.com: Current status of shuttle missions" points to a site where you can't see any video unless you register by paying "6 Months $29.99 USD or 1 Month at $9.99 USD". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.118.138 (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How does the Space Shuttle avoid (or account for) hypersonic shockwaves during its journey into orbit?

I posted this question over at the Talk:Hypersonic page, but I figure this also belongs here. -- kanzure (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

To get into earth orbit, people are telling me that you need to do Mach 25, and that the NASA Space Shuttle does in fact kick up to that speed. That's hypersonic. But what about the hypersonic shockwaves? NASA simulates their launches with OVERFLOW, a computer program for computational fluid dynamics, and as far as I can tell -- from reading Peter G. Buning's website -- there are no modified Navier-Stokes used in the program. The NS equations are known to fail beyond Mach 2 (or so) except in the case of the modifications by Howard Brenner and Reese et al., telling me that NASA is probably not accounting for hypersonic shockwaves since they can generate so much thrust with their truly awesome supply of LOX. Alternatively, maybe Max Q lets us know when we can kick up to hypersonic speeds, where shockwaves cannot be generated due to air density? Can anybody help me resolve this problem? Once again, it's just that it seems that NASA does not take into account hypersonic shockwaves, and I don't know why or how that's possible without them blowing up. Launch only, re-entry doesn't matter much to me at the moment. -- kanzure (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically it's not a problem at all; rockets optimally leave the atmosphere very early on to minimise drag, and so the Shuttle doesn't go supersonic or even hypersonic until it has left the thick part of the atmosphere. You don't precisely get shockwaves if you're high enough because the molecules are too far apart. In any case there's nothing magical about hypersonic shockwaves, nothing blows up, you just get a strong heating effect; oh and the shockwaves are a slightly different shape than at Mach 2, but it's much of a muchness. Bottom line is that NASA doesn't have to care much- the main tank gets a bit toasty but the Shuttle laughs at it (since it's designed for reentry).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reentry is a completely different ball of wax though, the air pressure is much higher, and the hypersonic shockwaves and the heating effects are intense. There's also a minor design screwup on the shape of the Shuttle, and it tends to be a bit unstable during reentry (the first Shuttle mission gave the crew some cause for concern). That's because the shockwaves apply pressure in a slightly different place on the vehicle than they would at lower speeds.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The Shuttle, as well as most if not all rockets, initially hold a very high AOA to escape the densest parts of the atmosphere as soon as possible. Once it is higher up, it pitches down to gain tangential velocity. As it approaches its final orbital velocity, it is high above the highest reaches of the atmosphere, hence there is no reason to worry about significant hypersonic effects. However, on re-entry, the Shuttle's deceleration is brought about by an atmospheric drag force, which means it must hit the atmosphere traveling at only a little less than its full orbital velocity. The OMS engines do not have nearly enough delta-V to slow it enough to enter the atmosphere at the same speed it had when it escaped it on takeoff.--Squeakywaffle (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Space Shuttle a launch vehicle or launch system?

Is the Space Shuttle a launch vehicle or a launch system? In other words, does the term 'Launch vehicle' define the whole Space Shuttle, including the external fuel tanks and rocket boosters, or does it just define the orbiter that is attached to the whole structure? And also when using the term 'Space Shuttle', does it refer to the whole launch system or just the orbiter? The term is quite confusing to use when describing the whole launch system and orbiter. WinterSpw (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I think I found the answer to my own question. In the article 'List_of_launch_vehicles#United_States' under 'Space Shuttle', it says 'Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster', so the launch vehicle of the Space Shuttle is actually just the booster rockets. Neat. WinterSpw (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Orbiter has rocket engines too. The integrated shuttle launches as a unit, so it is both. Launch system redirects to Launch vehicle now for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

phil alit

i am trying to find anyone who knew phil as an engineer with rockwell international space program doing the pitch and awe research in southern california around late 1960's to his 25 year retirement. he joined the orange county sheriffs dept and retired there too. any info or paperwork would be helpful regarding his burial in national cemetary. all info regarding his identy was lost in post office in yaccua valley, ca post office. we only got $100. for lost!!! your infor and paper work would help in final burial of him. thanks so much. vince alit, 360-658-3992 or vbalit1@yahoo.com. marysville, wa.71.113.0.127 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why scrubs?

Does anyone know the origin of "scrubbed"? Why aren't the missions delayed, postponed or canceled? I've never heard of a concert being "scrubbed", but many have been canceled or postponed. 209.244.7.241 (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Used as a verb, one of the standard meanings of "scrub" means to cancel an event. It's not unique to space missions. A concert or other event can be "scrubbed", and the word is sometimes used this way. See any dictionary. Joema (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

STS vs. Space Shuttle

Reading over various historical sources, the "Space Transportation System" originally refereed to a much grander set of vehicles. These included the Shuttle (then known as ILRV), an orbital tug, and a nuclear-powered inter-lunar/inter-planetary tug. One of the major mission profiles for the Shuttle would be up-n-down fuel delivery to an orbiting tank farm that would supply both of these tugs. When all of this got cancelled, NASA simply used STS to refer to the Shuttle only. Is this something worth mentioning here? Or perhaps it's own article? Maury (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry spelling or local spelling on aerospace articles

See here where I have used this article as an example. Should the American nature of the subject take precedence over the chemical element guideline in cases like this when it comes to aluminium vs. aluminum? --John (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest using whatever spelling NASA uses in its documents that mention the element. Ariel♥Gold 12:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Better image of STS-125

This is a superior image to the one currently displayed in the article: Image:Space_shuttles_Atlantis_(STS-125)_and_Endeavour_(STS-400)_on_launch_pads.jpg. It should probably replace the other one and the caption should be rewritten since it's grammatically incorrect as it stands now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image swapped out. I also rewrote the caption earlier in the day, so hopefully that should fix that, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop the stalking CC... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:46, 6 October 2008 (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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dang, it's so disappointing to have to refer to the Space Shuttle in the past tense now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.84.45 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 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)

Nothing has changed recently. There is still no official statement on where the orbiters are going. NASA has only expressed its intention to make them available to museums for display. Which museums get and orbiter and which orbiter they get is speculative at this point. Personally I'll be surprised if Discovery goes anywhere but Air and Space given it's history but I have the same level of information available that the media does, none. Any speculation about who is getting what needs to stay out of the article.--RadioFan (talk) 17:47, 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)

Pic needs better caption

Why the picture of President Nixon and friend playing with the toy Shuttle? An explanation would be nice. Is this picture in any way relevant to the article? If not, remove it. --Aflafla1 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont see a huge problem here. The accompanying section covers Nixon's approving the STS program. The caption identifies the people in the image. Could it be better, sure. But images need not have captions that completely summarize the article. And thats not a toy, it's an engineering model used to describe plans for the program. Calling it a toy is a bit disrespectful to the people who devoted their life's work to the program.--RadioFan (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the critique that the caption needs to be improved. It's an historic photo, so I thank Fotaun for adding it. Clicking through the photo gives more detailed info, but the key event was Congressional approval for funding. The caption now reads:

"President Nixon (right) with NASA Administrator Fletcher in January 1972, three months before Congress approved funding for the shuttle program."

The person who would fly the first mission (John Young, in 1981) was walking on the Moon when he got the news that the FY73 budget with funding for the shuttle got passed. Nixon did not have the authority to commit the US to the shuttle program, as JFK in '61 had no authority to commit the US to Apollo. It is common for people to misconstrue JFK's famous speech to Congress to mean that he was deciding for the country to go to the Moon. What that speech was, from 50 years and a few days ago, was JFK's effort to persuade Congress to vote for funding Apollo. And what is captured in this Shuttle photo is the President with his Administrator during a period when they were enthusiastically persuading Congress to vote for funding Shuttle. That was January '72. In April, their efforts were met with success.--Tdadamemd (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

'Was' vandalism?

Someone (or multiple someones) keep changing the first phrase of the article from "The space shuttle is" to "the space shuttle was". I think we can all agree that, at least until Atlantis lands, it's premature to be using the past tense to refer to the shuttle. There's never any explanation or reasoning given when this change is made.

I wonder why someone is so eager to refer to the shuttle in the past tense? Foreign propaganda maybe? :) Spiral5800 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Starting to look like it or a bunch of folks are misinformed and think the mission ends right after launch. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith and not accuse others based solely on paranoia. As for Fnlayson's comment, I could just as easily point out that one could say that the Shuttle doesn't become past tense even after it has touched down...Asking when something has ended is actually quite an involved question. But back to the point, frankly I fail to see the need to have an edit war over it given we are talking about a difference of days. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any thought given to a future politician reviving the Shuttle program? Or, does the Boeing X-37 program have enough potential to render the Shuttle program obsolete (I think it does, but that's just me)? SK (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fairly unlikely considering the Shuttle Orbiters have been put in museums. No point in discussing this possibly; if they were un-retired then the text could be updated. For NASA's Shuttle replacement efforts, see the successors section in this article or see Space Shuttle retirement. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a reason that "Space Shuttle" is capitalized on this page? It doesn't seem like a proper noun, and NASA's own website does not capitalize it (see the NASA page).Tls60 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)