This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is it right to call Enterprise a "prototype"? It was more like a test-bed airframe than anything resembling a full-fledged shuttle.
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)
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)
http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/REFERENCE.html Greetings from the old europe
What are the two partial failures listed in the statistics box —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.21.45 ( talk • contribs) .
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.
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
Disscuss at Talk:Space Shuttle program --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is nothing SO SPECIAL on the flights STS-121, STS-117 and STS-118 to be listed on this table.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Folks, keep in mind that section 0 is the summary, which shouldn't be cluttered with details.
-- 193.99.145.162 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
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:
For the information that is still here, I am changing the numbers back to what it said before User:Dink87522 "Removed vandalism".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Has there ever been a mission where maximum payload was necessary? 84.173.246.66 ( talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I hope you'll agree. — X S G 09:32, 13 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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
---
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Because Columbia wasn't a *launch* failure, right? This is deceptive.. 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is it right to call Enterprise a "prototype"? It was more like a test-bed airframe than anything resembling a full-fledged shuttle.
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)
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)
http://www.axmpaperspacescalemodels.com/REFERENCE.html Greetings from the old europe
What are the two partial failures listed in the statistics box —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.152.21.45 ( talk • contribs) .
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.
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
Disscuss at Talk:Space Shuttle program --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is nothing SO SPECIAL on the flights STS-121, STS-117 and STS-118 to be listed on this table.
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)
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)
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)
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)
Folks, keep in mind that section 0 is the summary, which shouldn't be cluttered with details.
-- 193.99.145.162 14:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
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:
For the information that is still here, I am changing the numbers back to what it said before User:Dink87522 "Removed vandalism".
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Has there ever been a mission where maximum payload was necessary? 84.173.246.66 ( talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I hope you'll agree. — X S G 09:32, 13 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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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)
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 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)
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)
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 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)
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)
---
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Because Columbia wasn't a *launch* failure, right? This is deceptive.. 88.159.72.240 ( talk) 17:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)