Talk:Space Shuttle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Shuttle article.
Article policies
For discussion prior to August 29, 2006, see Talk:Space Shuttle program.

Contents

[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_SimulationsUser 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_SimulationsUser 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_SimulationsUser 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_SimulationsUser 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)

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)

[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)

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

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

[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)

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)

[edit] Official depictions

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

[edit] "Spaceworthy"

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

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

Going up into space, surviving in space, and coming back in one piece is how I take it. Enterprise was built without a functioning heat shield, and therefore would have burned up on reentry should it have gone up into space. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's derived from the old maritime term "seaworthy". You can have a ship which is mechanically sound but not properly equipped for a sea voyage. Likewise Enterprise flew within the atmosphere during early control tests, but was not equipped for space, hence not "spaceworthy". Joema 17:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on safety record and the scandals

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

[edit] ET orange or brown?

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

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

How about we compromise and call it rust-colored like it says in the external tank article? Andy120290 17:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Most references describe the ET color simply as "orange". The CAIB focused extensively on the ET insulation, which caused the Columbia disaster. The CAIB also described the color as "orange". A quick google search shows the ET is described as orange approx 20x more frequently than brown. In general Wikipedia naming conventions say use the most common term. Joema 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If the reason we say "brown" is the picture, let's find a better picture. This is completely doable. There have been what, 100+ launches? SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Nicely resolved. Kudos. --193.99.145.162 11:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The astronauts do not carry their passports on board. I suppose one could argue they never really left the United States, since they never really entered another country. anonymous6494 21:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There is an astronaut assigned to crew retrieval if the Shuttle has to abort to a landing or bail out in another country. He or she has all the crew's passports and travels to the country concerned if needed. AJKGordon 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fleet history

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

[edit] Shuttle Patch.svg image

The thumbnail of Image:Shuttle Patch.svg in this article does not display in either Firefox or Internet Explorer.

--82.4.221.60 01:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reentry process explanation/clarification.

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

[edit] Criticisms

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

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

Because this goes under the Space Shuttle program article, and not this one which is about the system itself. nihil 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But the system itself has often been criticized as one of the bigger engineering boondoggles, and an article on a system known for it's shortcomings should include this. Between the CPU, the heat tiles, loose foam, and the maintenance issues it seems that this this system is open to lots of critique from an engineering persepective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timetaco (talk • contribs) 01:29, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
We already have some criticism from an engineering standpoint in Criticism of the Space Shuttle program#Design issues. As always, if you can cite it, say it. If we need to reengineer that section a little, then by all means, let's reengineer it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landing sites

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

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

[edit] Did a bit of cleanup

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

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

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

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

[edit] Hoodwinked by a vandal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that in one case the conversion was incorrect before the vandalism, and had been so for a while. Since 25,404 ft/s actually equals 7,743 m/s, I'd guess that the 7,643 was either miscopied when originally put there else subject to earlier vandalism. But these numbers should also set off some red flags for their precision, so a reliable source for that number would be especially useful. Gene Nygaard 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The original velocity posted 14 Nov 2001 didn't have either feet per second or meters per second, just " Velocity: 27,875 kph (17,321 mph)", numbers which remained until Dink87522's edit. So the 7,643 should have been 7,743, and it was here that way by the time this was split from Space Shuttle Program. That 27,875 km/h = 7743+ m/s = 25,404 ft/s, but probably not to that precision. Gene Nygaard 11:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word case "shuttle" or "Shuttle"?

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

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

[edit] Countdown procedure

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

[edit] L/D ratio (glide angle)

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

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

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

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

One document shows the shuttle L/D ratio varies from about 2.0 at subsonic speeds to about 1.0 at hypersonic speeds. The L/D curve can be seen on page 114, figure 1 of this pdf document: Space Shuttle Technical Conference, 1983, part 1. OTOH the same document shows a subsonic L/D of 4:1 on page 258, figure 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joema (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Added! Many tx.- (User) WolfKeeper - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image - on the pad or flying?

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

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

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

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

I agree the infobox image should show all three STS components (orbiter, ET, SRBs). But it would be nice for the image to be more dynamic, i.e. show some action. Could we use a picture of a shuttle stack during initial ascent, that shows the distinct SRB and SSME exhaust plumes? (sdsds - talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I do like the image AzaToth added, I too, agree that it is more appropriate to show the entire vehicle's structures, and also agree with Sdsds that "action" shots would be great. To this end, I propose using the image to the right, of the most recent launch. This accomplishes both goals, and also keeps the image somewhat standard to the images in the infoboxes of each individual shuttle article. Ariel♥Gold 05:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the image, and it also appears to address the way that photo of Atlantis on the pad ended up there. That pad photo of Atlantis went up there because people were editing the article regarding the color of the external tank, since the photo made the tank appear dark brown. This one has that problem, but to a far lesser extent. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OME vs. OMS

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

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

[edit] Link is swindle

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

[edit] Maxiumum payload

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

[edit] ASAT

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

I see almost nothing on the ASAT page regarding the Space Shuttle. There is little offensive capability of the Shuttle that isn't achieved in ICBMs and/or Nuclear Bombers... not sure what you are getting at here? — BQZip01 — talk 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Testing resumed in 1976 as a result of the US work on the Space Shuttle. Elements within the Soviet space industry convinced Leonid Brezhnev that the Shuttle was a single-orbit weapon that would be launched from Vandenberg, maneuver to avoid existing anti-ballistic missile sites, bomb Moscow in a first strike, and then land." and also from the Terra-3 WP- "On 10 October 1984, Soviet Minister of Defence Dmitry Ustinov ordered the Terra-3 complex to fire a warning shot at the shuttle Challenger, in response to the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative plans announced a year earlier, and the continued military use of the shuttle. (italics mine) Even though the shuttle was illuminated with a low-power laser, it caused malfunctions to on-board equipment and discomfort (possibly even temporary blinding) of the crew." so anyways who knows, but I do know that during the cold war MUCH of the orbiters mission was DoD related, and I think maybe someday the article could explain that a little more thoroughly. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Junk link

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

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

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

To get into earth orbit, people are telling me that you need to do Mach 25, and that the NASA Space Shuttle does in fact kick up to that speed. That's hypersonic. But what about the hypersonic shockwaves? NASA simulates their launches with OVERFLOW, a computer program for computational fluid dynamics, and as far as I can tell -- from reading Peter G. Buning's website -- there are no modified Navier-Stokes used in the program. The NS equations are known to fail beyond Mach 2 (or so) except in the case of the modifications by Howard Brenner and Reese et al., telling me that NASA is probably not accounting for hypersonic shockwaves since they can generate so much thrust with their truly awesome supply of LOX. Alternatively, maybe Max Q lets us know when we can kick up to hypersonic speeds, where shockwaves cannot be generated due to air density? Can anybody help me resolve this problem? Once again, it's just that it seems that NASA does not take into account hypersonic shockwaves, and I don't know why or how that's possible without them blowing up. Launch only, re-entry doesn't matter much to me at the moment. -- kanzure (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Basically it's not a problem at all; rockets optimally leave the atmosphere very early on to minimise drag, and so the Shuttle doesn't go supersonic or even hypersonic until it has left the thick part of the atmosphere. You don't precisely get shockwaves if you're high enough because the molecules are too far apart. In any case there's nothing magical about hypersonic shockwaves, nothing blows up, you just get a strong heating effect; oh and the shockwaves are a slightly different shape than at Mach 2, but it's much of a muchness. Bottom line is that NASA doesn't have to care much- the main tank gets a bit toasty but the Shuttle laughs at it (since it's designed for reentry).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Reentry is a completely different ball of wax though, the air pressure is much higher, and the hypersonic shockwaves and the heating effects are intense. There's also a minor design screwup on the shape of the Shuttle, and it tends to be a bit unstable during reentry (the first Shuttle mission gave the crew some cause for concern). That's because the shockwaves apply pressure in a slightly different place on the vehicle than they would at lower speeds.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Space Shuttle a launch vehicle or launch system?

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

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

[edit] phil alit

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

[edit] Why scrubs?

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

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