Talk:Space Shuttle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Shuttle article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

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

Contents 1 Enterprise - A "Prototype"? 2 Design 3 Orbiter flags? 4 partial failures?? 5 NASA Is Going To Do Away With the Shuttle Class 6 Current Event tags 7 Merger 8 orbiters wings 9 Time frames 10 Landing 11 Official depictions

[edit] Enterprise - A "Prototype"?

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

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

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

[edit] Design

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

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

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

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

[edit] Orbiter flags?

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

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

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

[edit] partial failures??

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

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

[edit] NASA Is Going To Do Away With the Shuttle Class

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

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

[edit] Current Event tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merger

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

[edit] orbiters wings

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

[edit] Time frames

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

[edit] Landing

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

158.147.103.169 21:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official depictions

From the page on [[1]], currecy of Northern Ireland has a '5 pound polymer note featuring the U.S. space shuttle'. Picture here: [[2]]. It appears to be a general-circulation note, not a symbolic or commemorative issue. Identity0 20:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)