Talk:Space Shuttle program/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Current Discovery Mission? 2 SRB reusability 3 Title of article 4 Shuttle-C 5 Proper name 6 Space shuttles generally 7 History 8 NPOV in "The Shuttle in retrospect" 9 Reordering of sections 10 Shuttle in Fiction 11 Emergency landings in French Polynesia 12 What A Waste! 13 Military Space Shuttle & TOP SECRET Military Space Shuttle 14 Slashdotted 15 Abort modes 16 A Question: Why no N-number? 17 Repetitiveness? 18 Discovery 19 Statistics 20 High-res plume shadow photo 21 HP 41 22 First reusable spacecraft 23 Three sets of engines 24 The CREWLESS (old) Space Shuttle 25 Costs section possibly needs revising 26 Tile statement wrong 27 Suggest various changes

Current Discovery Mission?

Info on Current shuttle mission?

This isn't a news site or a blog. Why should an encyclopedia entry mention the current mission of a shuttle? The launch after grounding is certainly something one can mention, but it isn't a very big deal in light of the entire history of the shuttle.

Too much page space. Too contemporary.

Agreed. The part about Discovery seems to have just been thrown in there, out of order with everything else. Not only that, but other sections of the article reference the recently finished mission in the future and present tenses. Marked for attention. --128.118.40.76 18:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've pretty much wiped that section, replaced it with a line saying the program is currently grounded. Perhaps we need a "future" section under "Usage"? Shimgray 21:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

SRB reusability

How can it be that the rocket boosters are reusable after falling down? Are parachutes used? - Patrick 13:08 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yep. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/srb/srb.html has details, though in bureacratic fashion they never actually say "we use parachutes". Stan 13:23 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Just a FYI, in that link it does mention that they use parachutes.

"The recovery crew retrieves the SRBs, frustum/ drogue chutes, and main parachutes." - Marshall

Title of article

This page needs a new title IMHO. Space shuttle is a general term that would also apply to the Soviet Shuttle Buran. Since this article is all about the US space shuttle, perhapse it should be renamed NASA space shuttle or something like that (does it have a real name?), while Space shuttle should deal with shuttles in general and point to the spscific models. -- stewacide

Right from the moment I found this page, I was figuring the sensible thing would be to have this article at Space Shuttle, and a generic shuttle article at space shuttle. On the other hand, there'd be sure to be some links going to the wrong place sooner or later, so perhaps a longer title like that (well, more like NASA Space Shuttle, I think) would be appropriate. -- John Owens 09:18 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Would NASA space shuttle or NASA Space Shuttle be better? Are there any other possibilities? (United States Space Shuttle looks/sounds weird IMHO). -- stewacide

I don't think it would look quite right to capitalize "Space" but not "shuttle". Both or neither, I would say. -- John Owens 16:35 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It depends on whether NASA considers "Space Shuttle" the name of the vehicle, or just a descriptive term. I'll look around the NASA web-site and see what I can dig up... -- stewacide

...I went to the NASA website and they can't seem to make up their minds either. Most of the time it seems to be capatailzed, but on some pages (e.g. [1]) it's not. Also, as far as I can tell it's never once refered to as the NASA space shuttle, but on a few pages (e.g. those compareing it to foreign craft) they call it the United States space shuttle.

I'm leaning towards United States space shuttle, any thoughts? -- stewacide 17:39 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Space Shuttle program gives ~25,000 in google. I'm thinking about NASA's Space Shuttle program (gives ~1800). -- Rotem Dan 18:43 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like Space Shuttle program too, but I don't know if it's specific enough. Perhapse United States Space Shuttle program would do it? -- stewacide

this gives only 69 in google --Rotem Dan

A "space shuttle" is a type of a reusable spacecraft. But "Space Shuttle [program]" (capitalized) appears to be the name of NASA's program for launching reusable spacecrafts (I think). Shuttle Buran ("snowstorm" in russian) was created in response to NASA's Space Shuttle program -- Rotem Dan 19:12 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So are you suggesting we use Space Shuttle program? I guess that works - I just wish NASA would give their program a less general name. It's like if Ford decided to name their next car "Car" - it's just confusing :) -- stewacide

I am confused myself, I don't know for sure. But Wikipedia has articles about the Viking program, Apollo program, Lunar Orbiter program, Voyager program, Mariner program etc. so I guess Space Shuttle program makes sense in this terminology. -- Rotem Dan 19:42 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've found another name Space Transportation System (gives 9970 google results, see [2] However, this is the name for the international endevour. -- Rotem Dan 19:42 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will find it if we call it that. I'm cool with Space Shuttle program if you are. -- stewacide 15:37 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I updated the information about the shuttle mission naming schemes, but it seems a little long for where it is. Should we move it down to its own section? --Jwolfe 19:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Considering how badly it flopped, maybe it's N something to revive, but it was originally Space Transportation System (STS). Use that? Trekphiler 11:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Shuttle-C

It might be nice to have some info on the Shuttle-C, but I can't think of a good way to fit it in. Maybe it should even be in a separate article? --NeuronExMachina 01:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Someone wrote a stub about the Shuttle-C. I expanded it a little and linked to it from here.--Chairboy 16:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper name

The proper name for the space shuttle is the "Space Transportation System", thus the mission prefixes of "STS". The problem is that no one is aware of the correct name because the STS was sold as a "shuttle to space" or "space shuttle". Here's a few links:

[3] [4]

The Russian shuttle is now known as the "Buran", even though that was only supposed to be the name of the first orbiter.

Space shuttles generally

I'm thinking of using the page "space shuttle" as a general term that includes a general definition of a space shuttle. "Space shuttle" should not be redirected to this article as the Soviet-made Buran is also known as a space shuttle. --Andylkl 12:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History

" Another factor in the cost benefit analysis was inflation, and in the 1970s this was high enough that the payback from the development had to happen very quickly to see a positive return. Hence, a high launch rate was needed to make the system economically feasible."

I don't think you mean "High inflation". I think you mean, "High interest rates".

I'm not sure how to cite this, but the White House's article on cost/benefit analysis includes the following: "Economic analyses are often most readily accomplished using real or constant-dollar values, i.e., by measuring benefits and costs in units of stable purchasing power. (Such estimates may reflect expected future changes in relative prices, however, where there is a reasonable basis for estimating such changes.)" http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html That is, when c/b is used with inflation-adjusted values, the level of inflation becomes irrelevant. OTOH, high inflation tends to be less predictable, leading perhaps to higher (real) interest rates.

Similarly for, "With budgets being pressed by inflation at home..." Again, I wouldn't bring inflation into the picture. Admittedly, there's some justification for this passage: high inflation can be fought with tighter fiscal policy (i.e. higher taxes or less spending). But budgetary austerity can also occur in other political environments. Also, monetary policy can be used to fight inflation, though this was out of fashion before Volker (appointed in 1979).[M4M 15:00, Aug 10, 2005.]

I am wondering how true this post is. The insenuate te idea originated in Germany and I got curious. [5]

NPOV in "The Shuttle in retrospect"

This article seems somewhat editorial to me. I have just made some edits that may help a bit, but we must be sure to word this section as a discussion of others' opinions, not of our own opinions. For example:

• "Even simple tasks now require unbelievable amounts of paperwork." Unbelievable by whom? Can we just say "tremendous amounts"? Tremendous compared to what?
• "Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the shuttle system is the Air Force participation." Annoying to whom? Can this be replaced by "regrettable" or does this just beg the question "regrettable by whom?"

--P3d0 18:00, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

"Tremendous amounts" according to NASA insiders. The joke goes, the stack of paper is as hi as the Shuttle before it's OKd to launch. Trekphiler 11:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Reordering of sections

This article needs some cleanup. I have started by reordering the sections in what I think is a more logical order. A side effect of this ordering is that it highlights some sections that are currently lacking in content (like most of the Usage subsections). I held off on other copyediting while reordering the sections, so my "reorder" edit was just that: a reordering only (along with removing some minor HTML markup intended to make things look better with the old ordering). --P3d0 18:36, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Shuttle in Fiction

I am new, so someone add the events of Armageddon (with bruce willis) to the shuttle in fiction section?

Apollo 13 is also missing. . . . -- Juicy 08:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but why would it be there anyway? Shimgray 17:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no mention of or relevance to Apollo 13 in regards to the shuttle. Armageddon is now listed in the fictional, perhaps this item should be removed from talk.--Chairboy 16:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emergency landings in French Polynesia

I stumbled upon a 1984 treaty between France and the US [6] arranging for emergency landings in Hao, Tuamotu archipelago, French Polynesia. The US government could send crews etc. suitable to prepare for emergency landings.

Have crews ever been pre-positioned on Hao? Are they still? David.Monniaux 06:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Polynesia might have been a possible location for a suborbital abort from Canaveral, or possibly for a launch out of Vandenburg. If it was negotiated, I'd like to look more into the circumstances; but the current abort modes are laid out for all to see; and Polynesia is not on that list. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the circumstances, but the treaty was signed. Hao is also listed as a possible emergency landing in this FAQ. David.Monniaux 16:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Source document from NASA is SHUTTLE SYSTEMS DESIGN CRITERIA VOLUME I - SHUTTLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT DATABOOK (REVISION B MARCH 16, 1999). The relevant entry for Hao can be seen at [7] (search for "hao atoll"). I am not sure whether this is a maintained document or one that is historic. I have doubts on its currency since it lists RAF Brize Norton and the current designated emergency site is RAF Fairford (see main article). --Silver149 07:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What A Waste!

Why does NASA keep funding this white elephant? It is not reliable, it is not economical, it is not worth it! This STS Space Shuttle should have been cancelled back in 1987. This program has sucked other programs dry like the Halley's Comet Mission in 1985 or the Mars Baseline Mission in 1986. Van Allen called it "The Slaughter of the Innocents"! If we had stayed with the Saturn V rocket, we could have had a Moon Base by now and men exploring Mars! I think we should take these clunkers to the Museums and save our cash! I am mystified why Reagan, Bush, Clinton allowed Congress to blow so much money on this wastrel of a launch system. Recently there was a report saying that the true cost of each shuttle flight was really 1.5 Billion a launch! Last year, Dubya announced that the Shuttle will be retired in 2011. Why wait? Just cancel it and start building Saturn V's! Supercool Dude 04:23, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you've had misunderstood that this is not a general forum. In fact, it refers to the article's content. Sorry to tell you - Bye Scriberius 23:54, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

If we get rid of space shuttles and settle with only spaceships designed to go past orbit from Earth, we won't be able to take advantage of space stations. It would be more economical in the long term to temporarily stop building larger ships and build a spaceship factory in orbit. That way, they could be made out of lighter materials and they wouldn't have to break free of Earth's gravity.

Military Space Shuttle & TOP SECRET Military Space Shuttle

Here is a NASA link for the NON SECRET Military Space Shuttle http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Shuttlebib/ch11.html

I think it will be impossible to find an official source for the TOP SECRET Space Shuttle. Here is what I posted before which got deleted. I heard it through the grapevine :

There are rumours about a non-civilian Space Shuttle, which was in use during cold war era until the middle of the first Clinton legislature. There are also rumours about the secret spaceship being back on duty with newest technologies on board, since the second legislature of US-President George W. Bush.

This is, to put it mildly, pretty damn nonsensical - that link's part of a bibliography on the development of the Shuttle (in which military input played a major role) and certainly not a source for anything. There is no plausible basis for any rumours about a secret militarised Shuttle - it simply could not have been kept secret and operational at the same time in the US - and more to the point, there are hardly even any rumours!

It's not encyclopedic material; had these rumours reached common currency, perhaps, or had they been sourced or debated. But this isn't the place to dump any random bit of cruft that someone mumbled about on Slashdot one day. Shimgray 13:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"random bit of cruft"?! It was on "West Wing"! (OK, Aaron was probably sucking mushrooms at the time, but...) Trekphiler 11:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Slashdotted

This article has been linked to by a Slashdot article, along with the Crew Exploration Vehicle article. -Eisnel 23:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Abort modes

I doubt the veracity of our section on abort modes. NASA has some abort mode information of their own, which doesn't appear to match what we have. For instance, the NASA document makes no mention of an "east coast abort landing". --P3d0 July 2, 2005 04:24 (UTC)

You are referring to a significantly out of date document. Please refer to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/TALSites.pdf and for detail http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/113029main_AscentChecklist_114_Final_RevA.pdf section 2 - specifically FB 2-14 and FB 2-16. -- User:Silver149 July 4, 2005 08.05 (UTC)

A Question: Why no N-number?

This might be obvious, but why don't the space shuttles have N-numbers? SpaceShipOne has one, and I know NASA is bureaucratically special, but this occurred to me recently and I can't seem to find an answer anywhere. -- iluvcapra 9:30 AM PDT July 26, 2005

It's not obvious, good question. The Shuttles are classified as Spacecraft, and consequently not regulated by the FAA. Additionally, if you were to stretch the point, they can just say 'It's a government aircraft, no N-Number required', but the first answer is nicer. SpaceShipOne has an N-number, btw, but it's classified as an experimental aircraft. - Chairboy 16:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks chairboy, good point; military aircraft possess no N-Number, nor does Air Force One. But alot of NASA aircraft do.

I'm no FAA weenie, but I think Air Force One technically does: SAM26000 (or is it 28000 now?). I'd guess "spacecraft" is why not on STS; she's not technically operating in civil airspace. Other NASA birds're civil, hence N registry (for USA, if you didn't know). Trekphiler 11:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Repetitiveness?

Is it just me, or is there a lot of that going on in this article?

Please sign your messages with ~~~~ (and consider getting a login while you're at it. Do you have some specific areas that you think should be edited down? It would definately be more helpful if you could give us a target. There is, after all, a lot going on with the shuttle... - Chairboy 14:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Discovery

We do have an article for the Space Shuttle Discovery, and in light of this I would really like know why all the information pertaining to Discovery's current mission is on this page instead of the Discovery proper page. TomStar81 07:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

For that, it should really be on STS-114, the page for the actual mission... Shimgray 12:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it should not be on this page, there are other pages more suited for it. TomStar81 02:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

Shouldn't the duration statistics for Discovery be updated as the STS-114 mission lasted over 13 days where the previous record for Discovery was 12.91 days? Mbisanz 03:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

High-res plume shadow photo

I replaced the plume shadow image with a higher resolution version that I obtained from this NASA page. I adjusted the levels and contrast on the NASA original a bit, but have I gone too far? -- Balster neb 08:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A beautiful picture. Your editing looks great, does not appear to introduce or suggest anything false. - Chairboy 14:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

HP 41

68.21.127.246 modified the article to say that the HP-65 was the first programmable calc used on the shuttle. After a quick search I found many references [8][9] stating the contrary - that the HP-41 was indeed the first calc used on the shuttle. So I reverted their edit. --Dan East 03:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

---

I am so far not able to locate the name of command module and when it is used and its construction features. Similarly on the first recovery test with an austronat. Neither I have seen any details on Russian trial of recovery with two dogs.' Can somebody give these details.

--Dore chakravarty 20:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

First reusable spacecraft

I just changed some text that asserted the shuttle was the first partially reusable spacecraft. I qualified it to say "orbital spacecraft" to account for the X-15. Putting a note here in case anyone wants to challenge me to a FIGHT TO THE DEATH on the matter. Bleaargh! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

En garde! It's a myth. The Mercury spacecraft were capable of being reused, just weren't. I'm guessing the "reusable" had something to do with N using expendable boosters (tho the SRBs seem a bit expendable to me...). Trekphiler 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Three sets of engines

I read something about there being three sets of engines on the Space Shuttle orbiter. They are the 3 main engines, the 2 orbital maneuvering system engines and 44 "thrusters" or reaction control jets. I have not noticed any page about the reaction control jets so it would be nice if someone made one. Also it would be nice if there was a page on the Space Shuttle orbiter.

The CREWLESS (old) Space Shuttle

I think that all space programs may restart using a CREWLESS (old) Space Shuttle.

And, with a crewless Shuttle, also the new lunar missions can be ready to start in HALF TIME and at HALF COST.

I expose the crewless Shuttle at http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html

The crewless Shuttle is better than the (theoric) Shuttle-C because it is not "automated" but remote-controlled and REUSABLE up to 200 TIMES (total flight for the three Shuttles) while the Shuttle-C burns in atmosphere after each mission.

The "my idea" part is a good reason to avoid integrating any of this into the main article, see WP:NOR. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Costs section possibly needs revising

This section repeats several often heard statements about development and operational cost. Unfortunately these are apparently wrong, according to testimony given at the Columbia Accident Investigation Board hearings. In those hearings shuttle program manager Bob Thompson testified that ultimate development and operational costs were very close to the earliest official projections. You can read a verbatim transcript here: [10]

He also discusses the myth that the Air Force "forced" certain shuttle requirements on NASA.

Also, this statement seems misleading: "One reason behind this apparent failure appears to be inflation...This magnified the development costs of the Shuttle."

Inflation does not increase actual costs; the number simply increases. It's not like gas prices going up. You don't judge the accuracy of a budgetary projection based on inflation (or deflation). It's true many people perceive inflation as increasing actual costs, but the article should be about what IS, not about what people believe. Joema 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Tile statement wrong

This statement: "The original silica-based ceramic tiles need to be removed for inspection for damage after every flight" is totally wrong. The tiles are not removed after each flight. Joema 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. Remember, this is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit, feel free to fix it yourself next time you see something like that! :) I have repaired the text in question. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggest various changes

In addition to my above suggestion about revising the "Costs" section, numerous areas in the history and other sections should probably be revised. The article repeats many "traditional wisdom" items about the shuttle, but in many cases these are wrong, or inconsistent with authoritative statements. I'll be happy to make these changes, but they're sufficiently extensive it's better to discuss first.

Examples:

Wikipedia: "NASA...in desperation...went to the Air Force...demanding a large increase in capability to allow for launching their projected spy satellites...land at the launch site (unlike NASA), the spacecraft would also require the ability to maneuver significantly...the Air Force-imposed capabilities that most seriously hobbled the Shuttle system have never been used."

Shuttle program manager Bob Thompson specifically said this is a myth -- it wasn't forced on NASA by the Air Force. Thompson: "NASA did not put cross range in the vehicle because the Air Force forced us to, NASA did it because it was the right way to build the vehicle...We wanted cross range for abort capability during launch...requirements for the shuttle were driven 99 percent by what we wanted to do to support the space station. It also happened to give the Air Force the kind of payload volume, the kind of capability they wanted"

Wikipedia: "a high launch rate was needed to make the system economically feasible...roughly one or two a week"

This conflicts with Thompson's statement: "Hell, anyone reasonably knew you weren't going to fly 50 times a year...We never thought you'd ever get above 10 or 12 flights a year."

Wikipedia: "The project was already to take longer than originally anticipated due to the year-to-year funding caps."

This conflicts with Thompsons's statement: "In Dec 1971...that letter said...we'll probably fly it in early 1981. That was in the document.'

References:

• CAIB Transcript 4-23-03
• CAIB Transcript site

Wikipedia: "Decisions to cut short-term development costs have resulted in a continued high-cost maintenance schedule."

The biggest reduction in development cost was eliminating the reusable flyback booster. It's very unlikely that increased maintenance, and in fact Thompson says pressing ahead with the flyback booster (even if funding was available) would have probably doomed the entire program. If this means reusable liquid fuel strap-on booster, that would increase, not decrease maintenance. It's unclear what short-term development costs were eliminated that resulted in high cost maintenance, or what the basis of that statement is.

Wikipedia: "Even simple changes require significant amounts of documentation. This paperwork results from the fact that, unlike current expendable launch vehicles, the Space Shuttle is manned and has no escape systems mode for most of the flight regime"

This conclusion isn't supported by other man-rated boosters. Apollo/Saturn had all-aspect abort, yet every tiny item in Apollo required meticulous documentation. It was a drag on development and greatly increased cost. Biographies by many principles including Von Braun, Tom Kelly (head of LM development), etc. mentioned this.

Wikipedia: "no abort modes...many pieces of hardware simply must function perfectly and so must be carefully inspected before each flight. The result is a massively inflated labor cost, with around 25,000 workers in Shuttle operations and labor costs of about $1 billon per year."

The Saturn V (which had all aspect abort) required 20,416 workers at NASA/Marshall alone. There were hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide. It's true many were production, not operational, but the expendable nature of the vehicle means production IS essentially operations. Despite having all aspect abort, the vehicle required huge resources for inspection and documentation.

I'm not saying the article positively must be changed to only reflect the above, but the current wording apparently comes from "conventional wisdom" sources of unknown veracity. By contrast the above CAIB testimony is by people directly involved with the program, and in many cases corroborated by paperwork dating from that period.

I'll be happy to reword a version incorporating these changes and submit it for review. Just let me know where to put it. Joema 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)