![]() | This page 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. |
NPOV and with references, despite the fact that I'm pissed off. You engineers don't have to go up in that piece of junk, and it's quite immoral to knowingly endanger the astronauts, for the same reason it's immoral to ask men to die in Iraq when you punks were in graduate school during Vietnam.
Diane Vaughan was a serious scientist who was invited to serve NASA. Richard Feynman was a leading physicist. Their CRITICAL views belong in this article, and I have endeavored to adhere to wikipedia guidelines, which don't include "don't be angry".
Feedback is welcomed.
It's nearly 60 KB, which is way over max suggested Wiki size of 30 KB. If no contrary suggestions, I'll break out the history and abort section to separate articles. That way those can be further fleshed out without making the main article any bigger. See article size suggestions, and Wikipedia:Summary style
Is it possible to use space shuttle for a lunar mission? Till the lunar orbiting phase of the lunar mission, the space shuttle may be used, then a lunar landing module, stored in the cargo bay will descent to the moon and then come back to orbiting shuttle and then shuttle come back to earth as usual...? Imaginary only..?
07:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Penguine_S 29 Jan 2006
I suppose you could put the shuttle into LEO with the ET still attached, make several unmanned launches to refuel, and then go. You'd need a fuel outpost at the moon too. -- GW_Simulations 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If anybody's edits have been rejected due to a Wikipedia spam filter error, I've fixed that. Somehow the spam filter logic was changed so a previously existing tinyurl ref caused edit attempts to be rejected. I removed the tinyurl reference. Joema 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved from ascent section to trivia, as it's not really part of ascent sequence. Paragraph was mostly correct, but I reworded slightly to clarify, fix spelling, improve grammar; also added internal links. Joema 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Astrowikizhang, thanks for the close attention to the slightly incorrect ET tank volume. I revised the metric volume to be consistent with the correct gallons figure you provided. Although the press release you mentioned stated aluminum construction, that was either out of date or a simplification. All tanks since 1998 (excepting STS-107) have been the Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT), built mostly from Aluminum-Lithium alloy #2195. A few components are still aluminum, most most is from the new alloy. For details see http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/casestudies/SLWT_Independent_Assessment_Report.pdf (warning, large PDF). Joema 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for your info, Joema. Astrowikizhang 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, just come up with several questions about pre-launch preparation:
Maybe adding a "Pre-launch preparation" section to the article will be interesting.-- Astrowikizhang 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The current maximum landing weight (104,000 kg) seems not correct. The orbiter can bring payloads of 14 515 kilograms (32 000 lb) back to Earth [3], about half of the max payload at lift-off. So the max landing weight should be much less than current number. Any acurrate number?-- Astrowikizhang 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
28.5 deg | 39.0 deg | 51.6 deg | 57.0 deg | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RTLS | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 245k lbs | 242k lbs | |
TAL | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 244k lbs | 241k lbs | |
AOA/ATO | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 242k lbs | 239k lbs | |
EOM | 233k lbs | 233k lbs | 233k lbs | 233k lbs |
http://space.com/news/ft_060218_atlantis_retire.html
Is there any reason to not consolidate measurements to a single system (i.e. eliminate knots for miles or vice versa)? If there are no objections, I will do so tomorrow.
Am I looking in the wrong article, or have we no information about crew life? Where's the nuts and bolts on sleeping, showering, and that other s-word? These are "peopled" flights - yet reading this article you'd guess that astronauts were cargo that required no special systems of their own. Rklawton 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The 2 SRBs each provide 3300 thousand pounds of thrust. The 3 SSMEs each provide 330 thousand pounds.
(3300 * 2) / (330*3 + 3300*2) = 0.82 = 82%.
The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster article gives 83%, so I'm going with that (presumably the figures are rounded.) 71% is too low; unless somebody has a cite? WolfKeeper 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok try:
(3300 * 2) / (393*3 + 3300*2) = 0.85 = 85%.
Either way 71% is too low. I think the current article is assuming only one SRB (The figures come out at about 73%, but the 71% was probably calculated using older thrust figures.)
The performance figures should really be pegged at a particular flight- they do vary. STS107 only had 2.8 million pounds thrust at takeoff, peaking at 3.05 million pounds. WolfKeeper 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to reiterate: the best SRB sea level liftoff thrust number we have is 2.8 million lbf per engine -- see thrust/time graph in Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. For SSME, the sea level liftoff thrust at 104% is 393,800 lbf per engine. See the thrust specs I added to SSME.
Using these numbers the math is simple. Vehicle mass doesn't matter when calculating SRB relative thrust contribution: (2.8 million * 2) / ((2.8 million * 2) + (393,800 * 3)) = 82.579%
The SRB thrust/time graph was from the CAIB report. The SSME thrust specs were from the : NASA Shuttle Press Kit SSME Reference (1.1 MB PDF) Joema 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I modified the wording in the Ascent section first paragraph, some of which was my wording and some Astrowikizhang and others. Reasons:
Many multiengine launchers stagger start their engines, but this is rarely mentioned except in specialized technical literature. If anybody thinks the SSME stagger start is important, the simple change "the SSMEs are stagger started" might suffice.
If any problems with these changes, please discuss here. Joema 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone think all the STS missions should be templated for ease of navigation, not just cat'ed? It would be a little large, so maybe with a hide option like:
?
Staxringold
00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put this picture in the Columbia & Space Shuttle articles? It shows the the new wing markings the orbiter got. http://www.vesmirweb.net/galerie/raketoplany/ig05_sts107_launch_02.jpg
I've archived old topics as a page size warning had appeared. -- GW_Simulations Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This picture is perfect for the Columbia individual launch photo. Can someone size it to the rest & put it in, please? It's absolutely perfect!!!!
http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_shuttle_Columbia_STS-107_launch_portrait.jpg
The most prominent image of the Shuttle as well as a large secondary image show the painted ET. Although the caption on the first picture explains why the tank was painted, I don't think this image should be used as the primary image in the article. I believe it would be more accurate to have a current image with the non-painted ET to better represent the current shuttle. Since it is likely that many people come to this page to get information on the current state of the shuttle, the first image they see should not be of a shuttle configuration that hasn't been used in 25 years. 161.40.22.50 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
After some thought, I'm going to have to fail this article. It seems to be great in just about every other way except that overall it doesn't cite its sources and while lists of stats and facts might seem impressive in their comprehensiveness, without knowing where they came from, there's no telling if the authors just made them up or something. Without citations, statements like "The Orbiter resembles an airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle," sound as if there's just someone out there watching t.v. saying, "hey, you know what the orbiter reminds me of? An airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle." This is not acceptable.
This article must do better and it certainly can do better in citing its sources. Good luck, TonyJoe 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a section on design errors added, and rather than revert it, I added the NPOV-section tag do to some questionable wording. I think the entire retrospect section needs some cleanup. Cjosefy 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Errors: there are many error classifications in engineering. If we're going to list errors, then we should consider doing so by classification. We should also consider which classifications are worth reporting. Frankly, you could fill a library with lists of all errors made during this or any other large initiative - from design flaws to typos. The unique mistakes I see reported in this section could better be classified under the heading "trivia." Rklawton 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
By "unique mistakes reported in this section..." I meant, mistakes not reported elsewhere. I think the two accidents you are referring to have been reported elsewhere, and they are not unique to this article. Rklawton 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Design Errors" section under Retrospect is judgemental, editorializing and not fitting for an encyclopedic reference. An encyclopedia doesn't make judgements or criticize -- it reports criticism (where appropriate) from credible sources. There are several problems with the added material:
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"Kelly was Grumman's head of the LEM project": this means he was inherently biased. It also may mean that he is no longer a qualified engineer; the implication of the managerial statement "think like a manager and not an engineer" is that the sets are disjoint, and only continuous work as an engineer makes one a reliable engineer, not managerial activities.
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Diane Vaughan's opinion, which is that NASA in general and the space shuttle in particular have a "broken safety culture" because managers can at-will reverse and remand engineering decisions, can be reported NPOV based on her research.
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Space flight is inherently dangerous. However, this cannot be a cloture rule in engineering discussions. If it is, then we can send willing men, women, criminals, the insane and damned fools into space in a tin can. Knowing that there is a dangerous design flaw is murder.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)The laundry list of "design errors" at the beginning of the Retrospect section is non-NPOV! The design wasn't in error in the sense that the choices were optimal given costs and goals.
What was broken was not the design, but the ability of the engineers to rectify their own goddamn mistakes. As Diane Vaughan and Feynman showed, the "error" was an institutional choice, made not at the level of hard-working engineers but at the level of the suits who ended the pre-1980 culture of pushback in which the concern of a "low level" engineer could delay a launch.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)The engineers found in the 1980s that they had been excluded from a previous iterative process that had been in effect in Apollo and Gemini because in the 1980s an arrogant technical class, technically educated (and thus deficient in general culture) but systematically out of date with regards to their technical class because their time was spent in administrative tasks, rose to power in the USA, and felt that the general public (the sort of slobs who sit and watch the launches from their trailer homes) would not understand the iterative admission of failure, and learning from failure, that constitutes engineering.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)It may appear to be merely paradoxical to say that the Design Errors list is non-NPOV while saying such horrible things about the Space Shithole, but "design errors" is managerese which blames working engineers for being shut out of pushback.
"On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore full-pressure Launch Entry Suit (LES) during ascent and descent. The pressured helmet was used from STS-5 until the loss of Challenger. The LES was reinstated when Shuttle flights resumed in 1988. The LES ended its service life in late 1995, replaced by the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES)."
Does this mean that they didn't wear helmets for the first 4 flights? -- Gbleem 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I undertand the roll and pitch program turns the craft so it flys shuttle side down however why is facing the wrong way to begin with?
Why not launch it with the dorsal side of the shuttle facing east? -- Gbleem 03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mary Shafer (a NASA engineer who co-authored at least one report on Shuttle aerodynamics) mentioned this in a Usenet thread about STS-1 autopilot errors:
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.space.tech/browse_thread/thread/45395a5147a18852
They also maxed out the bodyflap because the predictions of the longitudinal aerodynamic center-of-pressure location were incorrect. This was because C_m_0, pitching moment bias, was mispredicted.
However, whether it's still a problem or just a miscalculation which screwed up the original autopilot software is an entirely different matter. Mark Grant 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In a recent program on NASA TV, "Alligators and Rocket Ships," Jon Cowart, the presenter, made the statement "...we're SO sure the solid rocket motors are going to fire, we blow the bolts holding the shuttle down, THEN fire the solid rocket motors." In this article, it says the opposite. I don't know if this might have changed. Perhaps someone knows. Earl Kiosterud. Virginia Beach, Virginia. EarlKio 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty cool, anyway I see we have a separate article about the external tank, an article about the solid rocket boosters, some orbiter subsystems have their own (SSME, thermal protection system, canadarm...) but we have no Space Shuttle orbiter article, which is pretty bad since it would complete the series of STS-related articles. The article could describe how/where the crew sits in the orbiter, where they sleep, how the fuel cells provide electricity and water and for how long... to me, there's a lot that a orbiter article could cover... // Duccio ( write me) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is far too hagiographic. There are plenty of people out there who have spilled plenty of ink arguing that the shuttle program is a failure, a waste of national resources, and a prime example of a government program completely out of control. we have phrases like "While the Shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle..." popping up, and no one is even thinking to ask if this is even remotely true! 2 out of 5 have crashed in just over 100 flights! that sounds to me like a piece of junk and waste of tax dollars. what if your car blew up every 50th or 60th time you drove it? or airplanes crashed after 50 or 60 flights? and what about public response to the shuttle? does anyone even care anymore? some viewership of launches/ public opinion numbers/ etc. should be included.
I also think the negative issues with the shuttle should be presented, not just shuttle program cheerleading. Perhaps with a section listing objections to the Shuttle. We should remember that the Shuttle's only purpose was CHEAP and RELIABLE access to low earth orbit: A 'Space Truck'. By that standard, e.g. the cost per pound to orbit, the shuttle is a miserable failure (at over a billion $ per launch, over $20k per pound). It would have been much cheaper to use ULVs (like Saturn), and have avoided the entire Shuttle program.
There's other dirty shuttle secrets/laundry:
At least a listing of shuttle program critic's points is appropriate. To do otherwise is “emperor’s new clothes”.-- Wrwhiteal 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Shimgray: Capsules are inherently safer because:
Why do you think NASA is returning to the Capsule model? Wrwhiteal 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
Someone just added a change claiming that the shuttle re-entry cannot be flown manually. However, Mary Shafer claims that it _was_ flown manually on STS-1 to STS-4:
http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/shuttle_control.html
Of course I suppose to be pedantic it would depend on your definition of 'manual': the shuttle can't be flown without computer assistance because there's no direct link from the control stick to the control surfaces and RCS. But it can be flown with the pilot using the stick to tell the computers what to do. Mark Grant 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only can the shuttle re-entry be flown by the computer, it must be flown by the computer. Humans are not accurate enough to fly the complex patterns and tolerences required. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether the shuttle can land without humans onboard. My understanding is that it can, but that Astronauts have never allowed this to happen, even when it was a mission goal. They always grab the stick, to avoid being 'spam in a can'. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely we can agree that the initial Shuttle mission, and those involving exceptional risk as engineering tests after substantial changes, should be flown unmanned? My understanding is that the shuttle has been purposely hobbled to require humans on board to perpetuate the astronaut corps. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of:
Perhaps:
Also, this should be removed:
This comment should be toned down (at least):
While we're listing supposed "design limitations" perhaps we can add:
Feel free to add anything you want to the list. Cjosefy 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the latest manifest I've seen (13-July-06), the speculation on future flight numbers is correct. However, it is speculation and carries a huge number of caveats. It doesn't belong in a section called flight statistics. I suppose if the information were to be included, then we could also speculate the total flight days for each vehicle as well since, after all, we do have a manifest that predicts mission duration for at least the next 5 or 6 missions. There is a List of space shuttle missions that lists future launch dates. I would encourage contributions to that page if you want to add speculation. Cjosefy 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Early cost estimates of $118 per pound ($54/kg) ( of payload were based on marginal or incremental launch costs, and based on 1972 dollars and assuming a 65,000 pound (30,000 kg) payload capacity.
There is a math error here. If "$118 per pound" is correct, "$260/kg" should replace "$54/kg." If "$54/kg" is correct, "$25 per pound" should replace "$118 per pound."
An accompanying table compared costs for five options:
CASE
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
| |||||
Payload bay (ft.)
|
10 x 30 |
12 x 40 |
14 x 45 |
14 x 50 |
15 x 60 |
Payload weight (lbs)
|
30,000 |
30,000 |
45,000 |
65,000 |
65,000 |
Development cost ($billions) |
4.7 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
5.2 |
5.5 |
Operating cost ($millions/flight |
6.6 |
7.0 |
7.5 |
7.6 |
7.7 |
Payload costs ($/pound) |
220 |
223 |
167 |
115 |
118 |
The entire series of shuttle articles seems to be based on old information. The "Reference Manual" linked at the bottom of the page is from 1988. Even the "updated" version of this manual found at KSC [ [8]] and supposedly updated in 2002 is still horribly out of date, and may just be a "prettier" version of the 1988 manual.
There needs to be a concerted effort to really check the space shuttle articles for accurate information. Because most of them are cut and paste jobs from these outdated references, we have a high likelihood of error. Witness the page for the Space Shuttle External Tank which still included references to the RSS (which, granted, is in both of the NASA reference manuals) but was removed in 1996! Cjosefy 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The 50,000 lb number mentioned at the start of the article seems wrong. I don't know where it came from, but the actual maximum payload is higher. Cjosefy 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it that this article does not mention the X-20? That project obviously paved the way for the Shuttle. I would just insert some text about it but I think it would be more effective to describe the transition from one program to the other. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to have a separate article for the myriad criticism/retrospective content that is continually added and then reverted on this page. Of course there needs to be some of this information on this page, but it seems that there is a constant addition of POV pushers with almost all of the added content anti-Shuttle. The most recent additions are just an example of this. Right now the later part of this article reads like a diatribe against the shuttle. Imagine if they took the moon landing hoax article and just added it to the bottom of the Apollo 11 page! Certainly criticism of the program is valid, but instead of well-researched, legitimate criticism, we seem to get anti-shuttle rants. Cjosefy 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have closely watched NASA, the space program, and the Shuttle for 40 years. The basic Space Shuttle Program article contains many interesting and worthy facts and figures, but the overall evaluation of the program’s and the vehicle’s success is another matter. As I and others read it, the editorial part of article is NASA/Space Shuttle cheerleading and excuse making, is not objective or balanced, and glosses over the fundamental failure of the vehicle and program to achieve it’s objectives of advancing the national interests of cheap and reliable access to space, science research, technology development, inspiration, and space exploration. Obviously there are an increasing number of sincere critics of the program, and I think the attempts to portray them as biased, extremist nuts is unworthy and counterproductive. There are legitimate questions to ask and points to make. Readers of the article deserve to be served a balanced view, and those of us with a sincere desire for a robust, efficient and effective space program want a fair and objective analysis. Many of the criticisms are objective. E.g. what is the cost per pound of payload for the shuttle vs ELVs, has the launch rate of shuttles been reliable, were the NASA estimates of required shuttle launches accurate, etc. Others are bound to be judgmental, e.g. to what degree has the shuttle been inspirational as Apollo was, to what degree has Shuttle funding reduced funding for other worthy (e.g. un-manned) programs, to what degree are the Shuttle shortcomings due to NASA inefficiencies, lack of productively, and wasteful administration vs insufficient funding, how large have been the science contributions from the shuttle. Others are historical/political; to what degree has the shuttle program retarded the development of ELVs, is the shuttle mainly a jobs program, has the shuttle really advanced technology, has NASA efficiently administered the shuttle program, could private enterprise be more efficient than NASA. As necessary, the SS Program Criticism can be presented as ‘Many people think’ items, not as factual assertions.
I suggest that it will best serve the public interest to stop trying to defend and excuse the program, and instead, since it appears a Space Shuttle Criticism article is necessary, to work together to make it the best Space Shuttle Criticism article it can be, rather than just denying or rejecting all program criticism. Wrwhiteal 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have copied posts and text I consider relevant to Shuttle Criticisms to the new Criticism article, and added some outline notes on what I think the structure of the article should be. I will search for sources; I'm new at this and appreciate guidance and help. I think that perhaps the pro-shuttle spin comments (for example blaming shuttle problems on politicians and failures of funding, rather than NASA over selling, under analysis, and gross inefficiencies) should be removed from the base article. Wrwhiteal 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Some of the spins are explicit, some are by omission.
My main point is that the shuttle was designed to put things in space for x$ per pound ($100?) while it's actually cost much more than $28K per pound by any reasonable accounting ($1.3 billion per flight, and a payload averaging much less than 50k pounds), and that this most basic information is not presented.
If it has a role, NASA should be doing R&D, not falling back on proven technology. It should use and if possible help perfect commercially available boosters rather than building it's own.
BTW, Would this article qualify as a valid source of Shuttle Program Criticism? http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm If not, what would? I hope you don't want me to find an objective NASA report... Thanks Wrwhiteal 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just rewritten and tidied the cost section, taking it from being overly negative to NPOV (or so I hope) and trimming a lot of the repetition out. A few things to come out of that:
-- Mike Peel 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the current classification of Space Shuttle Explorer. It appears on the shuttle infobox, in the list of orbiters, and even in the Orbiter Vehicle Designation article as OV-100, even though the article clearly explains that OV-100 means vehicle 0.
I realize that it is a full size mockup, but it was made as a tourist attraction, not for any meaningful purpose. I have some of the same reservations about Space Shuttle Pathfinder, but at least Pathfinder was used by NASA as a test article, and it is mated with other actual hardware.
I think Explorer should be removed from the shuttle infobox, and the list of orbiters. It needs to be clearly defined as a mockup, made for tourist purposes. In fact, I would support a sub-section of the actual orbiter section that lists signifigant mockups (for example, Space Center Houston's Space Shuttle Adventure), but as it stands I feel the Explorer and to some extent the Pathfinder are being misrepresented, when in fact they are not even close to the 5 flight ready vehicles and Enterprise. Cjosefy 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was I have proposed that this article is split, into seperate articles about the program (here) and the Spacecraft and technology, which should be located at Space Shuttle. This mirrors the format of articles about Apollo - Apollo program and Apollo spacecraft, and the cancelled Soviet Buran - Shuttle Buran program and Shuttle Buran. --GW_Simulations |User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
AGREED Seperate pages for the Space Shuttle Program and the Space Shuttle (spacecraft). However if i may top you GW Simulations i think the should be a trrd page for the Space Shuttle, which would discuss general concepts and have links to all of the OTHER space shuttles. The Russian Space Shuttle, ESA'a Hermes, VentureStar, etc. What do you think?-- aceslead 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Support This is a logical thing to do. I would also suggest that when the move and split take place, that we also create an article for the orbiter, just as we have seperate articles for the other major components of the Space Shuttle. Cjosefy 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mildly Disagree While it appears superficially logical, I disagree with the split for three reasons: (1) Poor cost/benefit ratio. It's a lot of work just to improve consistency with the other articles. (2) Apollo project was more logically separate from the implementing hardware. The program directive was a complex manned moon mission, not just build the vehicles. By contrast the shuttle program was focused more on building the vehicle, not going anywhere. In this sense the shuttle is more similar to Project Gemini and Project Mercury. Note those articles don't break out spacecraft vs program. (3) Shuttle article is already mostly broken out. There are already articles for each main system: SRBs, ET, SSMEs. There's not one for the orbiter, but the orbiter (from one point of view) IS the shuttle. However from a standpoint of symmetry I could see a separate article on the orbiter. But then we get back to the large effort required to pick through everything, tediously extract the orbiter-specific info, build the new article, patch up the holes in the old article, etc. But I only mildly disagree, if someone wants to tackle this and can commit to a high quality job, go ahead. Joema 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with example but support split Shuttle Buran isn't actually about the vehichles of the Shuttle Buran program. On the contrary, Buran is the name of one of the vehichles, like Columbia or Atlantis. It would be a bit like if the US shuttle program was named Shuttle Challenger program.Becuase of the large amount of text about the orbiter, however, I wouldn't mind if the orbiter got its own article. -- GunnarRene 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Support split. The article as it stands is too long and tries to do too much. RandomCritic 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support split. This article is a wee bit too awkward. I made some quick cut-and-paste verions, Space Shuttle and Space Shuttle Program.-- Miguel Cervantes 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Split - I think the current article is too long and User:Thomas Connor's version looks OK to me as a starting point. Mark Grant 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
NPOV and with references, despite the fact that I'm pissed off. You engineers don't have to go up in that piece of junk, and it's quite immoral to knowingly endanger the astronauts, for the same reason it's immoral to ask men to die in Iraq when you punks were in graduate school during Vietnam.
Diane Vaughan was a serious scientist who was invited to serve NASA. Richard Feynman was a leading physicist. Their CRITICAL views belong in this article, and I have endeavored to adhere to wikipedia guidelines, which don't include "don't be angry".
Feedback is welcomed.
It's nearly 60 KB, which is way over max suggested Wiki size of 30 KB. If no contrary suggestions, I'll break out the history and abort section to separate articles. That way those can be further fleshed out without making the main article any bigger. See article size suggestions, and Wikipedia:Summary style
Is it possible to use space shuttle for a lunar mission? Till the lunar orbiting phase of the lunar mission, the space shuttle may be used, then a lunar landing module, stored in the cargo bay will descent to the moon and then come back to orbiting shuttle and then shuttle come back to earth as usual...? Imaginary only..?
07:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Penguine_S 29 Jan 2006
I suppose you could put the shuttle into LEO with the ET still attached, make several unmanned launches to refuel, and then go. You'd need a fuel outpost at the moon too. -- GW_Simulations 20:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If anybody's edits have been rejected due to a Wikipedia spam filter error, I've fixed that. Somehow the spam filter logic was changed so a previously existing tinyurl ref caused edit attempts to be rejected. I removed the tinyurl reference. Joema 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved from ascent section to trivia, as it's not really part of ascent sequence. Paragraph was mostly correct, but I reworded slightly to clarify, fix spelling, improve grammar; also added internal links. Joema 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Astrowikizhang, thanks for the close attention to the slightly incorrect ET tank volume. I revised the metric volume to be consistent with the correct gallons figure you provided. Although the press release you mentioned stated aluminum construction, that was either out of date or a simplification. All tanks since 1998 (excepting STS-107) have been the Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT), built mostly from Aluminum-Lithium alloy #2195. A few components are still aluminum, most most is from the new alloy. For details see http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/casestudies/SLWT_Independent_Assessment_Report.pdf (warning, large PDF). Joema 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again for your info, Joema. Astrowikizhang 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, just come up with several questions about pre-launch preparation:
Maybe adding a "Pre-launch preparation" section to the article will be interesting.-- Astrowikizhang 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The current maximum landing weight (104,000 kg) seems not correct. The orbiter can bring payloads of 14 515 kilograms (32 000 lb) back to Earth [3], about half of the max payload at lift-off. So the max landing weight should be much less than current number. Any acurrate number?-- Astrowikizhang 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
28.5 deg | 39.0 deg | 51.6 deg | 57.0 deg | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
RTLS | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 245k lbs | 242k lbs | |
TAL | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 244k lbs | 241k lbs | |
AOA/ATO | 248k lbs | 248k lbs | 242k lbs | 239k lbs | |
EOM | 233k lbs | 233k lbs | 233k lbs | 233k lbs |
http://space.com/news/ft_060218_atlantis_retire.html
Is there any reason to not consolidate measurements to a single system (i.e. eliminate knots for miles or vice versa)? If there are no objections, I will do so tomorrow.
Am I looking in the wrong article, or have we no information about crew life? Where's the nuts and bolts on sleeping, showering, and that other s-word? These are "peopled" flights - yet reading this article you'd guess that astronauts were cargo that required no special systems of their own. Rklawton 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The 2 SRBs each provide 3300 thousand pounds of thrust. The 3 SSMEs each provide 330 thousand pounds.
(3300 * 2) / (330*3 + 3300*2) = 0.82 = 82%.
The Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster article gives 83%, so I'm going with that (presumably the figures are rounded.) 71% is too low; unless somebody has a cite? WolfKeeper 15:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok try:
(3300 * 2) / (393*3 + 3300*2) = 0.85 = 85%.
Either way 71% is too low. I think the current article is assuming only one SRB (The figures come out at about 73%, but the 71% was probably calculated using older thrust figures.)
The performance figures should really be pegged at a particular flight- they do vary. STS107 only had 2.8 million pounds thrust at takeoff, peaking at 3.05 million pounds. WolfKeeper 15:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to reiterate: the best SRB sea level liftoff thrust number we have is 2.8 million lbf per engine -- see thrust/time graph in Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. For SSME, the sea level liftoff thrust at 104% is 393,800 lbf per engine. See the thrust specs I added to SSME.
Using these numbers the math is simple. Vehicle mass doesn't matter when calculating SRB relative thrust contribution: (2.8 million * 2) / ((2.8 million * 2) + (393,800 * 3)) = 82.579%
The SRB thrust/time graph was from the CAIB report. The SSME thrust specs were from the : NASA Shuttle Press Kit SSME Reference (1.1 MB PDF) Joema 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I modified the wording in the Ascent section first paragraph, some of which was my wording and some Astrowikizhang and others. Reasons:
Many multiengine launchers stagger start their engines, but this is rarely mentioned except in specialized technical literature. If anybody thinks the SSME stagger start is important, the simple change "the SSMEs are stagger started" might suffice.
If any problems with these changes, please discuss here. Joema 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone think all the STS missions should be templated for ease of navigation, not just cat'ed? It would be a little large, so maybe with a hide option like:
?
Staxringold
00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Can someone put this picture in the Columbia & Space Shuttle articles? It shows the the new wing markings the orbiter got. http://www.vesmirweb.net/galerie/raketoplany/ig05_sts107_launch_02.jpg
I've archived old topics as a page size warning had appeared. -- GW_Simulations Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This picture is perfect for the Columbia individual launch photo. Can someone size it to the rest & put it in, please? It's absolutely perfect!!!!
http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_shuttle_Columbia_STS-107_launch_portrait.jpg
The most prominent image of the Shuttle as well as a large secondary image show the painted ET. Although the caption on the first picture explains why the tank was painted, I don't think this image should be used as the primary image in the article. I believe it would be more accurate to have a current image with the non-painted ET to better represent the current shuttle. Since it is likely that many people come to this page to get information on the current state of the shuttle, the first image they see should not be of a shuttle configuration that hasn't been used in 25 years. 161.40.22.50 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
After some thought, I'm going to have to fail this article. It seems to be great in just about every other way except that overall it doesn't cite its sources and while lists of stats and facts might seem impressive in their comprehensiveness, without knowing where they came from, there's no telling if the authors just made them up or something. Without citations, statements like "The Orbiter resembles an airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle," sound as if there's just someone out there watching t.v. saying, "hey, you know what the orbiter reminds me of? An airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle." This is not acceptable.
This article must do better and it certainly can do better in citing its sources. Good luck, TonyJoe 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
There was recently a section on design errors added, and rather than revert it, I added the NPOV-section tag do to some questionable wording. I think the entire retrospect section needs some cleanup. Cjosefy 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Errors: there are many error classifications in engineering. If we're going to list errors, then we should consider doing so by classification. We should also consider which classifications are worth reporting. Frankly, you could fill a library with lists of all errors made during this or any other large initiative - from design flaws to typos. The unique mistakes I see reported in this section could better be classified under the heading "trivia." Rklawton 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
By "unique mistakes reported in this section..." I meant, mistakes not reported elsewhere. I think the two accidents you are referring to have been reported elsewhere, and they are not unique to this article. Rklawton 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Design Errors" section under Retrospect is judgemental, editorializing and not fitting for an encyclopedic reference. An encyclopedia doesn't make judgements or criticize -- it reports criticism (where appropriate) from credible sources. There are several problems with the added material:
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"Kelly was Grumman's head of the LEM project": this means he was inherently biased. It also may mean that he is no longer a qualified engineer; the implication of the managerial statement "think like a manager and not an engineer" is that the sets are disjoint, and only continuous work as an engineer makes one a reliable engineer, not managerial activities.
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Diane Vaughan's opinion, which is that NASA in general and the space shuttle in particular have a "broken safety culture" because managers can at-will reverse and remand engineering decisions, can be reported NPOV based on her research.
Spinoza1111 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Space flight is inherently dangerous. However, this cannot be a cloture rule in engineering discussions. If it is, then we can send willing men, women, criminals, the insane and damned fools into space in a tin can. Knowing that there is a dangerous design flaw is murder.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)The laundry list of "design errors" at the beginning of the Retrospect section is non-NPOV! The design wasn't in error in the sense that the choices were optimal given costs and goals.
What was broken was not the design, but the ability of the engineers to rectify their own goddamn mistakes. As Diane Vaughan and Feynman showed, the "error" was an institutional choice, made not at the level of hard-working engineers but at the level of the suits who ended the pre-1980 culture of pushback in which the concern of a "low level" engineer could delay a launch.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)The engineers found in the 1980s that they had been excluded from a previous iterative process that had been in effect in Apollo and Gemini because in the 1980s an arrogant technical class, technically educated (and thus deficient in general culture) but systematically out of date with regards to their technical class because their time was spent in administrative tasks, rose to power in the USA, and felt that the general public (the sort of slobs who sit and watch the launches from their trailer homes) would not understand the iterative admission of failure, and learning from failure, that constitutes engineering.
Spinoza1111 23:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)It may appear to be merely paradoxical to say that the Design Errors list is non-NPOV while saying such horrible things about the Space Shithole, but "design errors" is managerese which blames working engineers for being shut out of pushback.
"On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore full-pressure Launch Entry Suit (LES) during ascent and descent. The pressured helmet was used from STS-5 until the loss of Challenger. The LES was reinstated when Shuttle flights resumed in 1988. The LES ended its service life in late 1995, replaced by the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES)."
Does this mean that they didn't wear helmets for the first 4 flights? -- Gbleem 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I undertand the roll and pitch program turns the craft so it flys shuttle side down however why is facing the wrong way to begin with?
Why not launch it with the dorsal side of the shuttle facing east? -- Gbleem 03:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mary Shafer (a NASA engineer who co-authored at least one report on Shuttle aerodynamics) mentioned this in a Usenet thread about STS-1 autopilot errors:
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.space.tech/browse_thread/thread/45395a5147a18852
They also maxed out the bodyflap because the predictions of the longitudinal aerodynamic center-of-pressure location were incorrect. This was because C_m_0, pitching moment bias, was mispredicted.
However, whether it's still a problem or just a miscalculation which screwed up the original autopilot software is an entirely different matter. Mark Grant 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
In a recent program on NASA TV, "Alligators and Rocket Ships," Jon Cowart, the presenter, made the statement "...we're SO sure the solid rocket motors are going to fire, we blow the bolts holding the shuttle down, THEN fire the solid rocket motors." In this article, it says the opposite. I don't know if this might have changed. Perhaps someone knows. Earl Kiosterud. Virginia Beach, Virginia. EarlKio 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is pretty cool, anyway I see we have a separate article about the external tank, an article about the solid rocket boosters, some orbiter subsystems have their own (SSME, thermal protection system, canadarm...) but we have no Space Shuttle orbiter article, which is pretty bad since it would complete the series of STS-related articles. The article could describe how/where the crew sits in the orbiter, where they sleep, how the fuel cells provide electricity and water and for how long... to me, there's a lot that a orbiter article could cover... // Duccio ( write me) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is far too hagiographic. There are plenty of people out there who have spilled plenty of ink arguing that the shuttle program is a failure, a waste of national resources, and a prime example of a government program completely out of control. we have phrases like "While the Shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle..." popping up, and no one is even thinking to ask if this is even remotely true! 2 out of 5 have crashed in just over 100 flights! that sounds to me like a piece of junk and waste of tax dollars. what if your car blew up every 50th or 60th time you drove it? or airplanes crashed after 50 or 60 flights? and what about public response to the shuttle? does anyone even care anymore? some viewership of launches/ public opinion numbers/ etc. should be included.
I also think the negative issues with the shuttle should be presented, not just shuttle program cheerleading. Perhaps with a section listing objections to the Shuttle. We should remember that the Shuttle's only purpose was CHEAP and RELIABLE access to low earth orbit: A 'Space Truck'. By that standard, e.g. the cost per pound to orbit, the shuttle is a miserable failure (at over a billion $ per launch, over $20k per pound). It would have been much cheaper to use ULVs (like Saturn), and have avoided the entire Shuttle program.
There's other dirty shuttle secrets/laundry:
At least a listing of shuttle program critic's points is appropriate. To do otherwise is “emperor’s new clothes”.-- Wrwhiteal 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Shimgray: Capsules are inherently safer because:
Why do you think NASA is returning to the Capsule model? Wrwhiteal 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC).
Someone just added a change claiming that the shuttle re-entry cannot be flown manually. However, Mary Shafer claims that it _was_ flown manually on STS-1 to STS-4:
http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/shuttle_control.html
Of course I suppose to be pedantic it would depend on your definition of 'manual': the shuttle can't be flown without computer assistance because there's no direct link from the control stick to the control surfaces and RCS. But it can be flown with the pilot using the stick to tell the computers what to do. Mark Grant 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only can the shuttle re-entry be flown by the computer, it must be flown by the computer. Humans are not accurate enough to fly the complex patterns and tolerences required. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether the shuttle can land without humans onboard. My understanding is that it can, but that Astronauts have never allowed this to happen, even when it was a mission goal. They always grab the stick, to avoid being 'spam in a can'. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Surely we can agree that the initial Shuttle mission, and those involving exceptional risk as engineering tests after substantial changes, should be flown unmanned? My understanding is that the shuttle has been purposely hobbled to require humans on board to perpetuate the astronaut corps. Wrwhiteal 21:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Instead of:
Perhaps:
Also, this should be removed:
This comment should be toned down (at least):
While we're listing supposed "design limitations" perhaps we can add:
Feel free to add anything you want to the list. Cjosefy 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Based on the latest manifest I've seen (13-July-06), the speculation on future flight numbers is correct. However, it is speculation and carries a huge number of caveats. It doesn't belong in a section called flight statistics. I suppose if the information were to be included, then we could also speculate the total flight days for each vehicle as well since, after all, we do have a manifest that predicts mission duration for at least the next 5 or 6 missions. There is a List of space shuttle missions that lists future launch dates. I would encourage contributions to that page if you want to add speculation. Cjosefy 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Early cost estimates of $118 per pound ($54/kg) ( of payload were based on marginal or incremental launch costs, and based on 1972 dollars and assuming a 65,000 pound (30,000 kg) payload capacity.
There is a math error here. If "$118 per pound" is correct, "$260/kg" should replace "$54/kg." If "$54/kg" is correct, "$25 per pound" should replace "$118 per pound."
An accompanying table compared costs for five options:
CASE
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
| |||||
Payload bay (ft.)
|
10 x 30 |
12 x 40 |
14 x 45 |
14 x 50 |
15 x 60 |
Payload weight (lbs)
|
30,000 |
30,000 |
45,000 |
65,000 |
65,000 |
Development cost ($billions) |
4.7 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
5.2 |
5.5 |
Operating cost ($millions/flight |
6.6 |
7.0 |
7.5 |
7.6 |
7.7 |
Payload costs ($/pound) |
220 |
223 |
167 |
115 |
118 |
The entire series of shuttle articles seems to be based on old information. The "Reference Manual" linked at the bottom of the page is from 1988. Even the "updated" version of this manual found at KSC [ [8]] and supposedly updated in 2002 is still horribly out of date, and may just be a "prettier" version of the 1988 manual.
There needs to be a concerted effort to really check the space shuttle articles for accurate information. Because most of them are cut and paste jobs from these outdated references, we have a high likelihood of error. Witness the page for the Space Shuttle External Tank which still included references to the RSS (which, granted, is in both of the NASA reference manuals) but was removed in 1996! Cjosefy 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The 50,000 lb number mentioned at the start of the article seems wrong. I don't know where it came from, but the actual maximum payload is higher. Cjosefy 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How is it that this article does not mention the X-20? That project obviously paved the way for the Shuttle. I would just insert some text about it but I think it would be more effective to describe the transition from one program to the other. — Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to have a separate article for the myriad criticism/retrospective content that is continually added and then reverted on this page. Of course there needs to be some of this information on this page, but it seems that there is a constant addition of POV pushers with almost all of the added content anti-Shuttle. The most recent additions are just an example of this. Right now the later part of this article reads like a diatribe against the shuttle. Imagine if they took the moon landing hoax article and just added it to the bottom of the Apollo 11 page! Certainly criticism of the program is valid, but instead of well-researched, legitimate criticism, we seem to get anti-shuttle rants. Cjosefy 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have closely watched NASA, the space program, and the Shuttle for 40 years. The basic Space Shuttle Program article contains many interesting and worthy facts and figures, but the overall evaluation of the program’s and the vehicle’s success is another matter. As I and others read it, the editorial part of article is NASA/Space Shuttle cheerleading and excuse making, is not objective or balanced, and glosses over the fundamental failure of the vehicle and program to achieve it’s objectives of advancing the national interests of cheap and reliable access to space, science research, technology development, inspiration, and space exploration. Obviously there are an increasing number of sincere critics of the program, and I think the attempts to portray them as biased, extremist nuts is unworthy and counterproductive. There are legitimate questions to ask and points to make. Readers of the article deserve to be served a balanced view, and those of us with a sincere desire for a robust, efficient and effective space program want a fair and objective analysis. Many of the criticisms are objective. E.g. what is the cost per pound of payload for the shuttle vs ELVs, has the launch rate of shuttles been reliable, were the NASA estimates of required shuttle launches accurate, etc. Others are bound to be judgmental, e.g. to what degree has the shuttle been inspirational as Apollo was, to what degree has Shuttle funding reduced funding for other worthy (e.g. un-manned) programs, to what degree are the Shuttle shortcomings due to NASA inefficiencies, lack of productively, and wasteful administration vs insufficient funding, how large have been the science contributions from the shuttle. Others are historical/political; to what degree has the shuttle program retarded the development of ELVs, is the shuttle mainly a jobs program, has the shuttle really advanced technology, has NASA efficiently administered the shuttle program, could private enterprise be more efficient than NASA. As necessary, the SS Program Criticism can be presented as ‘Many people think’ items, not as factual assertions.
I suggest that it will best serve the public interest to stop trying to defend and excuse the program, and instead, since it appears a Space Shuttle Criticism article is necessary, to work together to make it the best Space Shuttle Criticism article it can be, rather than just denying or rejecting all program criticism. Wrwhiteal 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have copied posts and text I consider relevant to Shuttle Criticisms to the new Criticism article, and added some outline notes on what I think the structure of the article should be. I will search for sources; I'm new at this and appreciate guidance and help. I think that perhaps the pro-shuttle spin comments (for example blaming shuttle problems on politicians and failures of funding, rather than NASA over selling, under analysis, and gross inefficiencies) should be removed from the base article. Wrwhiteal 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure Some of the spins are explicit, some are by omission.
My main point is that the shuttle was designed to put things in space for x$ per pound ($100?) while it's actually cost much more than $28K per pound by any reasonable accounting ($1.3 billion per flight, and a payload averaging much less than 50k pounds), and that this most basic information is not presented.
If it has a role, NASA should be doing R&D, not falling back on proven technology. It should use and if possible help perfect commercially available boosters rather than building it's own.
BTW, Would this article qualify as a valid source of Shuttle Program Criticism? http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm If not, what would? I hope you don't want me to find an objective NASA report... Thanks Wrwhiteal 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just rewritten and tidied the cost section, taking it from being overly negative to NPOV (or so I hope) and trimming a lot of the repetition out. A few things to come out of that:
-- Mike Peel 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the current classification of Space Shuttle Explorer. It appears on the shuttle infobox, in the list of orbiters, and even in the Orbiter Vehicle Designation article as OV-100, even though the article clearly explains that OV-100 means vehicle 0.
I realize that it is a full size mockup, but it was made as a tourist attraction, not for any meaningful purpose. I have some of the same reservations about Space Shuttle Pathfinder, but at least Pathfinder was used by NASA as a test article, and it is mated with other actual hardware.
I think Explorer should be removed from the shuttle infobox, and the list of orbiters. It needs to be clearly defined as a mockup, made for tourist purposes. In fact, I would support a sub-section of the actual orbiter section that lists signifigant mockups (for example, Space Center Houston's Space Shuttle Adventure), but as it stands I feel the Explorer and to some extent the Pathfinder are being misrepresented, when in fact they are not even close to the 5 flight ready vehicles and Enterprise. Cjosefy 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was I have proposed that this article is split, into seperate articles about the program (here) and the Spacecraft and technology, which should be located at Space Shuttle. This mirrors the format of articles about Apollo - Apollo program and Apollo spacecraft, and the cancelled Soviet Buran - Shuttle Buran program and Shuttle Buran. --GW_Simulations |User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
AGREED Seperate pages for the Space Shuttle Program and the Space Shuttle (spacecraft). However if i may top you GW Simulations i think the should be a trrd page for the Space Shuttle, which would discuss general concepts and have links to all of the OTHER space shuttles. The Russian Space Shuttle, ESA'a Hermes, VentureStar, etc. What do you think?-- aceslead 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Support This is a logical thing to do. I would also suggest that when the move and split take place, that we also create an article for the orbiter, just as we have seperate articles for the other major components of the Space Shuttle. Cjosefy 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Mildly Disagree While it appears superficially logical, I disagree with the split for three reasons: (1) Poor cost/benefit ratio. It's a lot of work just to improve consistency with the other articles. (2) Apollo project was more logically separate from the implementing hardware. The program directive was a complex manned moon mission, not just build the vehicles. By contrast the shuttle program was focused more on building the vehicle, not going anywhere. In this sense the shuttle is more similar to Project Gemini and Project Mercury. Note those articles don't break out spacecraft vs program. (3) Shuttle article is already mostly broken out. There are already articles for each main system: SRBs, ET, SSMEs. There's not one for the orbiter, but the orbiter (from one point of view) IS the shuttle. However from a standpoint of symmetry I could see a separate article on the orbiter. But then we get back to the large effort required to pick through everything, tediously extract the orbiter-specific info, build the new article, patch up the holes in the old article, etc. But I only mildly disagree, if someone wants to tackle this and can commit to a high quality job, go ahead. Joema 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with example but support split Shuttle Buran isn't actually about the vehichles of the Shuttle Buran program. On the contrary, Buran is the name of one of the vehichles, like Columbia or Atlantis. It would be a bit like if the US shuttle program was named Shuttle Challenger program.Becuase of the large amount of text about the orbiter, however, I wouldn't mind if the orbiter got its own article. -- GunnarRene 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Support split. The article as it stands is too long and tries to do too much. RandomCritic 04:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support split. This article is a wee bit too awkward. I made some quick cut-and-paste verions, Space Shuttle and Space Shuttle Program.-- Miguel Cervantes 16:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Split - I think the current article is too long and User:Thomas Connor's version looks OK to me as a starting point. Mark Grant 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)