Talk:List of Space Shuttle missions

message: It would appear that STS-133 and STS-134 have been switched in the order that they go (the orbiter that performs each one has also been switched so that each orbiter remains in its original time slot). see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html
*Done! I corrected the list to reflect the recent changes made.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: STS-133 and STS-134

message: I am new to editing Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm going about this wrong, but if Enterprise is included in the list, Pathfinder should also most definitely be included. It, too, has never flown (never meant to), but it is a full Space Shuttle. I leave this editing to those who know what they're doing. ;)
:It's only a simulator, isn't it? Enterprise is at least a functional shuttle, no? —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is a list of space shuttle missions, pathfinder can't be included because it never did anything but logistic ground tests.  The inclusion of Enterprise looks to be only the free flight tests.  These are clearly differentiated from the actual shuttle missions.  So, the unstated rule is that a shuttle had to have free flight.  It could be argued, though, that ALL the approach and landing tests should count, even if it Enterprise was mated to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.  Note that I DO NOT agree with this idea, but since we don't have a stated inclusion criteria, the argument could be made. Cjosefy 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete list

message: * All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C, STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Content-free Space Shuttle pages

message: It would be nice to be able to find somewhere an explanation of why missions are not in numerical order.  For example, STS-107 (Columbia accident) was preceded by STS-113 and will be succeeded by STS-114. Jdavidb 19:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When a Space Shuttle mission is first planned, it is assigned an STS number (example STS-113). During planning and training for that mission, it may fall behind. Another mission may prove to be more critical and may get moved up in the launch order. The missions keep their original STS numbers, but may end up being launched out of sequence. Error 404 17:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Good work. it looks good. Mlm42 03:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ordering

message: Are the landing site listings all correct?  Weren't at least one or two missions diverted to White Sands? --Matt McIrvin 21:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. There is certainly cleanup work to do. However, this is data that wasn't there before, at all. -Joseph (Talk) 21:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
Somebody fixed STS-3... I went through looking for later missions that landed at Edwards.  Think I got them all, but I could have missed one or two. --Matt McIrvin 22:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Landing sites

message: i noticed the STS-300 article, shouldn't that be included on the list, or only when it is actually called upon? Boneyard 12:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's mentioned in the first section of the article.. whether or not it should actually be on the list may be up for debate, since we're including future missions anyway.. it is kind of a special case, though. Mlm42 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: STS-300

message: on http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com there is a mission manifest thats new. If anyone can verify it as being true, i'll update this page to show it. Tom walker 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Future Missions

message: Isn't it bad to show dates for future missions seeing asa how they NEVER launch on the dates planned! It is misleading, and we all know it. Maybe we should put future or planned or unsure in that date box instead to be less ambiguous. → J@red talk+ ubx  23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with you. I want to know the dates of the future shuttle missions. What's wrong with that? I think, it's interesting to see the scheduled launch dates. And if every future mission is so successful like STS-121, I see no problems for the further flights. -- STS-Chris 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of future missions

message: I think the order number on the chart is not helpful.  It is not strict and, as certain flights are moved up and done out-of-order from their original schedule it is confusing. We have gaps to attempt to track the STS numbers early in the list and later there is an offset. We should either be strict or not have it at all. -- 75.24.105.208 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Order number

message: The list has 18 future missions while Mike Griffin has indicated many times, including after STS-121 flight, that there are only 16 missions left, 15 to assemble the ISS and 1 to the Hubble. It seems to me therefore that the list includes two non-existing missions. Which ones ? 193.56.37.1 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! STS-131 and 133 are Contingency Logistic Flights. These missions will take place only if it is necessary. So the last scheduled missions are STS-130 and 132. -- STS-Chris 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 16 or 18

message: It might be interesting to have a section on cancelled/not flown missions.  I know there were a number of missions placed on the manifest and later cancelled (some even with patches already made, etc.).  Also, this would take care of the STS-3xx missions that don't get flown.  We shouldn't lose the fact that these missions were on the manifest and in the planning stages, but not needed. Cjosefy 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cancelled Shuttle missions --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancelled/not flown missions

message: I removed Template:STS from the bottom of this page.  This page is already a list of all space shuttle missions, so I think there isn't much added by having what amounts to another list of the same missions placed at the bottom of the page.  It's basically having the same information twice on the page, which is especially bad when that information involves 100+ missions.  Cjosefy 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of [[Template:STS]]

message: Are the dates provided in UTC or local (Eastern). That makes a difference for STS-116 for instance. Hektor 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Should the title be List of space shuttle missions or List of Space Shuttle missions. Seeing as "Space Shuttle" is a name, I would suggest the latter. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalisation

message: Why is there an Ares launch on the list. I know it is Shuttle-derived, but it is not a Shuttle itself. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just true and since nobody seems to care about it being held in there, I now will kick it out. It simply isn't a space shuttle. It's as simple as that. There are no Saturn rocket starts listed either! Just the wrong place for an Ares launch to be listed, sorry. ColdCase 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ares

message: I'm wondering... the page states that the STS-133 mission is only called STS-133 if the STS-131 and STS-132 are flown (I personally added that it would be called STS-131 if not, but it already read "STS-133 if CLFs are flown", so it would only be correct to assume that it's called STS-131 if they are not flown, if that is what this statement wanted to say). But to be honest, I think those mission numbers don't change! That is why there are sometimes high numbers early in the program and low numbers later... because they were planned in that order, but not flown in that order (or not flown at all). The last shuttle mission is already called mission STS-133 and I think it doesn't matter if the STS-131 and STS-132 (which would both be flown before STS-133) missions are flown, the STS-133 mission is STILL called STS-133 since all its planning took place under this name. So maybe we should just write down "133" and nothing about "if CLFs are flown" or so... in my opinion and understanding of NASA numbering, there is only one STS-131 mission, and it is not sure if it takes place. But there is for sure one STS-133 mission, and that is the last one and not one of the CLFs, it's the Endeavour mission on 9. July 2010, and it will be the last mission and flight of the space shuttle program. Anyone who knows more about that or agrees/disagrees?? ColdCase 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, please, forget it!! I messed up the mission name and the number of the flight in correct order! Sorry about that... that's just my fault. There's no problem! It would be flight 133 if the CLFs are flown and it would be 131 if they are not flown, just from a numbering point of view. The name of the mission is correctly stated as "STS-133". Excuse my stupid me ;) Again: No Problem, no discussion necessary. Over and out ColdCase 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: STS-133

message: Hi. For a featured list, this page doesn't seem to have many references. Please can someone add some before I feel a review of the list's featured status is required. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Under references there is a link to NASA's space shuttle mission archive, which has all the numbers that are used in at least the timeline list. We could make that an inline ref at the top of that list. I'm personally not gonna waste my time on referencing 122 missions to each and every separate entry of NASAs website though. The thing that worries me most is the "totals" table. It would be good if we could have a reference that uses the same numbers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the totals table needs to be ripped out and started again, with distances to a set number of significant figures. Most of the distances for current flights are rounded, which is why so much information is missing. from the table. As for references, I think inline citations are prefered in FAs. I'll see if I can do some of it at some point soon. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured list

message: You can find an Up-To-Date Statistic @ de:Space Shuttle#Statistik (might change within the next fiew days). It includes all flights untis STS-123 and will be updated every mission from now on. We also added the number of reserch Satelite wich were deployed and later recatched during the same mission (it#s the number in brackets). I highly recommend to write durations out instead writing them with a decimalpoint (e.g.: 300d 16h 47m 1s instead of 300.74d) and also keep the Distance short (e.g.: ca. 200 Mio. km instead of 201,497,772km) --Harry from germany18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good way to format them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight Statistics

message: There should be standards defined in the use of italics. For instance, for the MPLMs, sometimes the names are italicized, and sometimes not. What is the rule ? Hektor (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they should be italicized. We don't use italic's for the shuttle names, or for the moduel names like Harmony or Kibo. If we use italic's for the MPLM's then we need to use italic's for all names in the space articles.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do use italics for shuttle names. Any time a shuttle is mentioned by name, it is italicized. The same goes with any of the ISS modules, they too are always italicized, and when MPLMs are mentioned by name, they should be italicized as well. Where they aren't, it is by someone unfamiliar with the Manual of Style for the space/mission pages, and should be corrected. Ariel♥Gold 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify this a bit: The word "shuttle" is a noun. But when talking about a specific orbiter, such as Space Shuttle Discovery, it is a proper noun, should be capitalized, and the name italicized. If just talking about a generic shuttle activity, like "the shuttle landed without incident", shuttle isn't capitalized, or italicized. But when we talk about them as a proper noun, such as "Space Shuttle Endeavour successfully launched today", we do. The same goes for the MPLM, while it is nearly always linked and fully spelled out on the first mention, when including the name, such as "Leonardo", the name is italicized, but but not the "MPLM" part. Similarly, if one is just referring to any MPLM, then it would not be italicized. This is how it has been done for years, according to the Space MOS, the Maritime MOS, etc. (Ship names are also italicized - see Discovery, Adventure, Dolphin, etc., etc.) Ariel♥Gold 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardization in the use of italics

message: * I find it strange to have "Never flew" next to STS-119. Furthermore, if it had been flown as a rescue mission, it would have been in 2009, not in 2008. Hektor (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't a rescue mission for STS-126 have been STS-319, not STS-119, I am going to change it to STS-319 since it would have been an STS-3xx mission, so people are not confused.--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia bans original research, there is no source about STS-319 existing, you cannot call it this way. Hektor (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its actually not original research. I made the change based on the STS-3xx article and what has been discussed on the talk page there. It was stated rescue flights are labeled with the flight number(STS-319 for STS-119). So therefore it is not original research. Also I know the rules, I am not stupid or incompetent.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the preceding comment was deleted by . I have restored it as no justification for its removal was made. This action does not necessarily reflect on my opinion of the statement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still disagree, in fact I disagreee with the whole list of not flown mission; the reason is that the list is not comprehensive, there are lots of missions which were not flown after Challenger for instance, they are not in the list either. Why put emphasis on the 3xx series ? Maybe we should have two articles, one with the flown missions, one with all the unflown missions. Hektor (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Back on topic, what's the deal with STS-119?  It is listed as both flown and not flown. In addition, the link on the "never flew" mission directs to the flown mission's page.  Perhaps it should be included once in the regular list with a note specifying the nature of the postponement. --Anon
I'm not sure if it's totally useful to individually list all these missions. If we slightly improve the "contingency missions" section, it should be clear enough in my opinion. The primary reason they were included, was because they were talked about in press confs etc, but they are now mostly a part of history. But, reading about this suddenly made me remember that several other "unflown" but planned missions are missing in this list. These are some of the missions that were designated before challenger, and most of them were defense related launches (to be launched from SLC-6 Vandenberg) if I remember correctly. Several of the missions of '86 and later were simply re-designated, but I clearly remember reading that several were cancelled altogether. If someone has more info on them, that might be nice to add. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

text: lol. this is really funny. I posted this several hours after I initially wrote it (got distracted and the tab got lost in all the other browsertabs). And I noticed the edit conflict, but only several hours later I see that Hektor said almost the exact same thing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: STS-119 "Never flew"

message: Why is the Buran listed as "destroyed"? Wasn't it purchased by a museum in Germany?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdconod (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Braun was destroyed in an accident. It was being stored in a hanger at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, when the hanger collapsed, destroying the Braun space craft.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Concur.  The article should be split into "US Space Shuttle Missions" and "USSR (?) Space Shuttle Missions."  Oh wait, there was only one...  Most of this material is about the US Program and the two vehicles have little other than the vehicles' outer appearance in common.  Will do so in a few days if no discussion. ThreeE (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Shuttles

message: STS-131 is assigned to Discovery, STS-132 to Atlantis  --Lenard Lindstrom (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Future missions STS-131 and STS-132 assigned to the wrong shuttles

message: I think that the 5 ALT tests flown by Enterprise should be removed from the list. These are definitely not "space shuttle missions" as defined in any sense: well it might have flown in the air, but certainly not into space. I have a feeling that including these gliding tests will only confuse the readers even deeper. Given that there is an even more comprehensive list in the Approach and Landing Tests, I think that the five "missions" should be removed from the list. Any comments? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think they should be removed. Maybe adding sub-orbital test flight to the notes for each one, but removing them would be a little much. They are important events in the space shuttle programs history. I say keep them.--NavyBlue84 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the ALT tests be removed from the list?

message: since STS-135 is approved by NASA and seems likely to get political/funding approval ? Rod57 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Made a start. Rod57 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Could add STS-135 to the planned missions

message: Should we mention in the table what STS-xxx mission used what SRB-xx/ET-xx combination - it currently mentions the orbier-names. The three major components of the launch system are those (Orbiter, ET, SRBs). See also here. Alinor (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Launcher configurations for each STS mission

message: As the NASA Space Shuttle program winds down -- with the certainty that, whatever the future of NASA's manned spaceflight mission is, it is not going to be in shuttles -- I'd like to open discussion on the final form of this article.  Obviously, it isn't going to have a 'planned missions' section any more, but what else can be done to make this article better laid out, more comprehensive, and more informative? I suspect that statistics need review, at the very least.RandomCritic (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibilities for more information would be to add a "Payload" column, which lists the primary payload, possibly with masses included (at the moment this info is in the "Notes" column). Also, although it may increase the size of the table, information that seems to be "missing" from the table is the names of the crew; but the table would probably expand in size a lot and end up looking much like List of human spaceflights to the ISS.. unless there's a way to add a "show crew" feature to each line of the table, which is hidden by default? Mlm42 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the "Day" and "Year" columns could be combined into a "Launch date" column. And maybe a "Docking" column would be useful, which would contain either nothing, "Mir", "HST", or "ISS" (or others I'm forgetting..). Mlm42 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've combined the Day and Year columns, and added a "Docked with" column. Maybe a natural way to split of the table would be to split it into "Post-Challenger disaster" and "Post-Columbia disaster" sections, since these were both followed by long stretched of no Shuttle flights. Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of this article

message: Is there a reason all the Space Shuttle missions between STS-41B and STS-61D are denoted on this page (and almost every other shuttle- or astronaut-oriented site that I've browsed through) are shown as "STS-41-B" with the extra dash prior to the alpha character?  Kind of a minor deal, but the official NASA records do not reflect this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/list_main.html) so I'm kind of wondering why the past Wikipedia authors do.  It would require a little bit of work to fix on all the pages, but nothing impossible.  Am I missing something?  Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The dashes are noted in the mission history from KSC, which manages the missions (see here for example).  The NASA HQ website has been long overdue for a major overhaul; a lot of the information is outdated or sparse in details and finding the proper locations to get more details from the main page, can be difficult.  They are actually in the process of doing a major overhaul, bringing a lot of the satellite sites under one umbrella (for better or worse for the time being), it will be a long time before it is finished. --Xession (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool - thanks for the info!   Ckruschke (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra Dash in Mission Titles? 

message: The number of flights column actually totals 133, but the total reads 132. The number of orbits column totals 20,508, but the total reads 20,022. If there is a reason for the discrepancy it should be explained in the table.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaxson (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics table doesn't add up 

message: I'd like to remove the table listing contingency missions from the relevant sections, for the following reasons: first, it takes up space; second, exactly the same information can be found in the linked STS-3xx article; third, all of its information is counterfactual at this point, as none of the contingency flights ever launched.  While it was worth keeping as long as there was a chance that there might, at some time, be a contingency flight that was actually a flown shuttle mission, right now it doesn't seem to be an essential part of an article whose main focus is those shuttle missions which actually flew. (We don't list flights that were proposed but cancelled, for instance.)  Any objections? RandomCritic (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I object! I think that they should stay, and that all proposed but unflown missions should be added. Just because a mission didn't launch doesn't mean some credence shouldn't be given to it. The LON missions and those like STS-144 (Hubble retrieval mission) could be put in a section called something like "Unflown" or "Unlaunched" or "Proposed missions". Just the two cents of a nut!--NavyBlue84 18:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Keep them.  The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list of missions.  Deleting the information because it can be found elsewhere is contrary to that purpose.  The fact that these missions did not launch does not change that they were planned for and designated.  They belong in the list. Keep. TJRC (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contingency missions 

message: Would it be possible to add a column to the mission list table to indicate which of the two shuttle launch pads each mission launched from?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4420:5914:0:211:24FF:FEA1:BFCB (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small request 

message: A column in the table for each mission's Post Flight Presentation video would be awesome.  Any table-jockeys up for it?   :)  And if you haven't seen the vids, they are amazing.  What a great resource!
STS Post Flight Presentation Videos are at:  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL46C2B72FFEAEE72D
Clintonefisher (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDEA: Links to Post Flight Presentation Videos 

message: footnote NO. 14, Godwin, p. 32, what's this "Godwin" stand for?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: From the bibliography, "Goodwin, Robert (2001). Space Shuttle – STS Flights 1-5 – The NASA Mission Reports. Canada: Apogee Books. ." Appears to be a typo. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  source problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029004712/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20160314160635/http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/ to http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked this change ~ Matthewrbowker Say something ·  What I've done 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Test flights section, the image of Enterprise states the date of image as "26 September 1977".  However, the chart in that same section does not have any flights listed in the "Launch date" column for that date.  Is the chart wrong or the date listed on the file image? Mitchumch (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: Should the Lead and body of article include where the Enterprise and the surviving three orbiters are on display? The information can be copied from the articles about the individual vehicles. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are orbiters now? 

message: Don’t want to sacrifice accuracy and official language for the sake of sensitivity, but this does seem a very brutal and dehumanising way to describe what happened. Could we replace it with ‘leading to deaths of entire crew’ or similar? Harsimaja (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘Eliminating crew’ 

message: The sections "Launches" and "Timelines of missions" at the end of the article use two completely different color schemes for identifying the individual orbiters. The sections are adjacent to each other, so this difference is very noticeable. I propose we standardize these color palettes. I personally like the colors used in the Shuttle timeline template much better, and the Launches bar chart actually used that color scheme previously. However the colors were updated for color blind readability, so I could live with that. Either way, I think we need to update the colors used in the Launches section, or update the "Template:Shuttle timeline" colors. Comments? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your idea.  I don't care which colors are used, but color blind readability should be prioritized. Mitchumch (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some research to find a colorblind-friendly color palette that also looked good against a white background. Several good color palettes had at least one color that was too light to show up well against white. I ended up going with Paul Tol's "Bright" color scheme. Edited the Launches section on this page, as well as the  template. I'm not sure it's perfect, but I think it's better than what we had before, since the two visualizations are now consistent. BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine to me. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors in Launch Graphics