Talk:Space Shuttle program/Archive 2

message: NPOV and with references, despite the fact that I'm pissed off. You engineers don't have to go up in that piece of junk, and it's quite immoral to knowingly endanger the astronauts, for the same reason it's immoral to ask men to die in Iraq when you punks were in graduate school during Vietnam.
Diane Vaughan was a serious scientist who was invited to serve NASA. Richard Feynman was a leading physicist. Their CRITICAL views belong in this article, and I have endeavored to adhere to wikipedia guidelines, which don't include "don't be angry". 
Feedback is welcomed.
:Although it is important to show criticisms of the space shuttle program, the reference to the cracked foam on the July 4th launch of STS-121 does not fall into this category (or at least not yet). The risk the foam presented to the shuttle was deemed to be low enough to launch, and indeed subsequent analysis of the orbiter has shown no large damage due to foam. As it appears now, NASA's administration made a good decision, and it is the administrators who run NASA (and not the engineers) who ultimately decide if the risk is acceptable. We do not hear about engineers who have opposed previous (successful) missions, so we shouldn't hear about it in this case either. 100DashSix 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added "Cultural issues and problematics" [[User:Spinoza1111|Spinoza1111]] 06:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 

message: If anybody's edits have been rejected due to a Wikipedia spam filter error, I've fixed that. Somehow the spam filter logic was changed so a previously existing tinyurl ref caused edit attempts to be rejected. I removed the tinyurl reference. Joema 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam filter problems causing rejected edits 

message: Moved from ascent section to trivia, as it's not really part of ascent sequence. Paragraph was mostly correct, but I reworded slightly to clarify, fix spelling, improve grammar; also added internal links. Joema 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved lightning paragraph to trivia 

message: Astrowikizhang, thanks for the close attention to the slightly incorrect ET tank volume. I revised the metric volume to be consistent with the correct gallons figure you provided. Although the press release you mentioned stated aluminum construction, that was either out of date or a simplification. All tanks since 1998 (excepting STS-107) have been the Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT), built mostly from Aluminum-Lithium alloy #2195. A few components are still aluminum, most most is from the new alloy. For details see http://pbma.nasa.gov/docs/public/pbma/casestudies/SLWT_Independent_Assessment_Report.pdf (warning, large PDF). Joema 20:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ET construction material 

message: Hello, just come up with several questions about pre-launch preparation: 
*1. Where is the Orbiter Maintenance Facility(OMF)? What is the use of it? If I am right, orbiters are resting in OMF before the moving to VAB.  
:: The correct term is "Orbiter Processing Facility", located west of the Vehicle Assembly Building. I think "Orbiter Maintenance Facility" was the equivalent west coast building when shuttle launches were planned from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
*2. Is that propellant-loading test a routine test before count-down? 
*3. When the propellant-loading test finished or the launch aborted, is that some way to unload the ET? 
:: I'm positive the answer is yes, but don't know the details.
*4. Is that possible to launch two shuttles from 39A and 39B in a very short of time? How short can it be?
:: Yes, in this Wikipedia article STS-41 it shows two shuttles at the same, one on 39A and the other on 39B. Don't know how short the interval can be. 
*5. How many Mobile Launch Platforms are made? Are they the ones used in Apollo program?
:: The correct term is " Crawler - Transporter", and there are two. They are essentially the same ones used for Apollo, with modifications: 
::* Crawler-Transporter
::* 
::: I think the Crawler-Transporter and MLP are two separate facilities. Crawler-Transporter moves MLP and shuttle stack to launch complex and left them there when crawling back to a safe distance. Three MLPs are redesigned for shuttle.--Astrowikizhang 17:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I don't know answers to your other questions. Joema 23:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-launch preparation questions 

message: Is there any reason to not consolidate measurements to a single system (i.e. eliminate knots for miles or vice versa)?  If there are no objections, I will do so tomorrow.
:Hopefully you are not proposing getting rid of metric or customary units. As to nautical miles to miles - nautical miles (not knots to miles). This is a matter of how the figures are normally reported. There is perhaps an argument for adding a third or fourth figure (knots, mph, km/hr, m/s) Wouldn't that make reading confusing. So I guess no opinion on the second matter. Rmhermen 17:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Measurements

message: Am I looking in the wrong article, or have we no information about crew life?  Where's the nuts and bolts on sleeping, showering, and that other s-word?  These are "peopled" flights - yet reading this article you'd guess that astronauts were cargo that required no special systems of their own.  Rklawton 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is mostly about the space shuttle, not life on board the shuttle. This is consistent with other similar articles. E.g, Apollo Command/Service Module and Lunar Module don't have paragraphs about crew life onboard those vehicles. However you have a good point, some info on the crew facilities would be good. Joema 16:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crew Compartment/Crew

message: I modified the wording in the Ascent section first paragraph, some of which was my wording and some Astrowikizhang and others. Reasons:
* Saying only "three engines" doesn't immediately specify which ones (SSME?, SRB?, OMS?)
* No such word as "staggeredly"
* SSME stagger start and liftoff gimbal position are minute details not meaningful to the general audience.
* Remove redundant internal link to abort modes and SSME articles
* Streamline structure and word count, per Elements of Style: Omit Needless Words
Many multiengine launchers stagger start their engines, but this is rarely mentioned except in specialized technical literature. If anybody thinks the SSME stagger start is important, the simple change "the SSMEs are stagger started" might suffice.
If any problems with these changes, please discuss here. Joema 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the stagger start seems to be too specialized. I think it is necessary to mention the Sound Suppression. Because some general audience may come up with the question of "why they spray water under the vehicle?"Astrowikizhang 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; I agree. Joema 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Ascent section first paragraph 

message: I've archived old topics as a page size warning had appeared. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: The most prominent image of the Shuttle as well as a large secondary image show the painted ET.  Although the caption on the first picture explains why the tank was painted, I don't think this image should be used as the primary image in the article.  I believe it would be more accurate to have a current image with the non-painted ET to better represent the current shuttle.  Since it is likely that many people come to this page to get information on the current state of the shuttle, the first image they see should not be of a shuttle configuration that hasn't been used in 25 years.  161.40.22.50 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of painted ET images vs. non-painted 

message: After some thought, I'm going to have to fail this article. It seems to be great in just about every other way except that overall it doesn't cite its sources and while lists of stats and facts might seem impressive in their comprehensiveness, without knowing where they came from, there's no telling if the authors just made them up or something. Without citations, statements like "The Orbiter resembles an airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle," sound as if there's just someone out there watching t.v. saying, "hey, you know what the orbiter reminds me of? An airplane with double-delta wings, swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 45° angle." This is not acceptable.
This article must do better and it certainly can do better in citing its sources. Good luck, TonyJoe 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Failure

message: "On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore full-pressure Launch Entry Suit (LES) during ascent and descent. The pressured helmet was used from STS-5 until the loss of Challenger. The LES was reinstated when Shuttle flights resumed in 1988. The LES ended its service life in late 1995, replaced by the Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES)."
Does this mean that they didn't wear helmets for the first 4 flights? --Gbleem 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It means that from STS-5 to 51-L, they only wore helmets. After Challenger broke up at an altitude too high for the astronauts' helmets to supply air to keep them conscious NASA decided that it was probably a good idea to wear full suits on all flights... had the Challenger astronauts had the current suits and parachutes some would probably have been able to get out alive. Mark Grant 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helmet use. 

message: Mary Shafer (a NASA engineer who co-authored at least one report on Shuttle aerodynamics) mentioned this in a Usenet thread about STS-1 autopilot errors:
http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.space.tech/browse_thread/thread/45395a5147a18852
They also maxed out the bodyflap because the predictions of the longitudinal aerodynamic center-of-pressure location were incorrect. This was because C_m_0, pitching moment bias, was mispredicted.
However, whether it's still a problem or just a miscalculation which screwed up the original autopilot software is an entirely different matter. Mark Grant 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Center of pressure offset 

message: In a recent program on NASA TV, "Alligators and Rocket Ships," Jon Cowart, the presenter, made the statement "...we're SO sure the solid rocket motors are going to fire, we blow the bolts holding the shuttle down, THEN fire the solid rocket motors."  In this article, it says the opposite.  I don't know if this might have changed.  Perhaps someone knows.  Earl Kiosterud.  Virginia Beach, Virginia. EarlKio 00:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered that myself. I've never found a definitive answer, and can see reasons for doing either. If one of the SRBs doesn't ignite the crew are dead anyway, so I'd guess it's safe to fire the bolts just beforehand and assume both will ignite... from what I remember the ignitors are pretty simple and multiply redundant. Mark Grant 00:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bolts and the SRBs are fired simultaneously, by the same circuit. The bolts appear to blow a fraction of a second beforehand, since the thrust of the SRB takes a moment to come down the nozzle, but they're set off at the same time. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blow the bolts 

message: This article is pretty cool, anyway I see we have a separate article about the external tank, an article about the solid rocket boosters, some orbiter subsystems have their own (SSME, thermal protection system, canadarm...) but we have no Space Shuttle orbiter article, which is pretty bad since it would complete the series of STS-related articles. The article could describe how/where the crew sits in the orbiter, where they sleep, how the fuel cells provide electricity and water and for how long... to me, there's a lot that a orbiter article could cover... // Duccio (write me) 14:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that does sound like a good idea. I'll see if I can at least put a stub together when I have time to do some research on it. Mark Grant 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbiter article 

message: Someone just added a change claiming that the shuttle re-entry cannot be flown manually. However, Mary Shafer claims that it _was_ flown manually on STS-1 to STS-4:
http://yarchive.net/space/shuttle/shuttle_control.html
Of course I suppose to be pedantic it would depend on your definition of 'manual': the shuttle can't be flown without computer assistance because there's no direct link from the control stick to the control surfaces and RCS. But it can be flown with the pilot using the stick to tell the computers what to do. Mark Grant 15:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's incorrect. I don't recall the exact terms, but basically there's three modes, fully automatic, semiautomatic with stabilisation, and manual. The shuttle has been landed on both the first two. As I understand it the second mode just helps the pilot keep it pointed in the indicated direction, but the pilot determines which direction it points in. It's theoretically possible to land on full manual, but the astronauts would be fighting the somewhat unstable vehicle over large portions of the reentry interface, and I don't know if anyone has managed to land it even on the simulator.WolfKeeper 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It can't right now; although NASA recently hacked together a system that could be fitted whilst docked at the ISS which in theory could land it completely automatically. It involved cables snaking around the cockpit, and would only be used as a last ditch attempt to get a damaged Shuttle down. For it to work would require long periods of communications from the ground.WolfKeeper 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual re-entry 

message: Instead of:
*Placing the heat shield where it could be damaged by foam and ice falling off the external tank.
Perhaps:
*Underestimating the amount of foam loss and its effect on the vehicle
Also, this should be removed:
*A design using the ceramic heat shield, as the tiles are susceptible to damage, and cost millions to replace. 
This comment should be toned down (at least):
*The O-ring/joint design on the SRB was originally quickly thought out and this in combination with operation at low temperatures led to the loss of Challenger.
While we're listing supposed "design limitations" perhaps we can add:
*Vehicle can most likely not survive a water landing
Feel free to add anything you want to the list.Cjosefy 20:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Design Limitations

message: Based on the latest manifest I've seen (13-July-06), the speculation on future flight numbers is correct.  However, it is speculation and carries a huge number of caveats.  It doesn't belong in a section called flight statistics.  I suppose if the information were to be included, then we could also speculate the total flight days for each vehicle as well since, after all, we do have a manifest that predicts mission duration for at least the next 5 or 6 missions.  There is a List of space shuttle missions that lists future launch dates.  I would encourage contributions to that page if you want to add speculation. Cjosefy 14:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation in Flight Statistics section

message: The entire series of shuttle articles seems to be based on old information.  The "Reference Manual" linked at the bottom of the page is from 1988.  Even the "updated" version of this manual found at KSC [] and supposedly updated in 2002 is still horribly out of date, and may just be a "prettier" version of the 1988 manual.
There needs to be a concerted effort to really check the space shuttle articles for accurate information.  Because most of them are cut and paste jobs from these outdated references, we have a high likelihood of error.  Witness the page for the Space Shuttle External Tank which still included references to the RSS (which, granted, is in both of the NASA reference manuals) but was removed in 1996! Cjosefy 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outdated information

message: The 50,000 lb number mentioned at the start of the article seems wrong. I don't know where it came from, but the actual maximum payload is higher. Cjosefy 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Number is correct. The heaviest payload the shuttle has ever lifted is around 50k lbs (55kb PDF):  You may be thinking about estimated payload capacities of 65k lbs, discussed back before the shuttle ever flew. This contrasts with its actual payload capability of about 50k lbs to a low-inclination orbit. Payload to ISS (all remaining missions except maybe one) is significantly lower than even that. Joema 13:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the 65k number isn't attainable (even though it still remains as a mission profile).  However, I'm pretty sure although they've only sent up slightly less than 50k, the actual max is a little more than that (probaby ~53-54k).  It might be a good idea to clarify the wording.  Also, I think there needs to be a distinction made between LEO and ISS flights.  The 50k number is likely to confuse people, especially if word comes out that future flights such as 115 are going to have a hard time getting below max weight for ISS missions.  In any event, later this week I can find he source for the greater than 50k actual max payload. Cjosefy 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Maximum Payload

message: How is it that this article does not mention the X-20? That project obviously paved the way for the Shuttle. I would just insert some text about it but I think it would be more effective to describe the transition from one program to the other. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find sources for the connection between them, feel free to add them. Mark Grant 17:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  X-20 

message: I've just rewritten and tidied the cost section, taking it from being overly negative to NPOV (or so I hope) and trimming a lot of the repetition out. A few things to come out of that:
* What were the original expected costs of the shuttle program, in today's dollars? This is important, and it isn't currently mentioned.
* I've removed the reference for the cost of adding a flight, and replaced it with a citation needed. The reference () doesn't mention the cost of adding a flight - the closest it gets is "If the shuttle flight rate is already at its maximum, then it makes little sense to talk of adding flights". Unless I've missed something...?
* I've removed "It takes about 20 pounds (9.1 kg) of fuel to lift 1 pound (.45 kg) of cargo into orbit  ." Although interesting, what exactly does this have to do with cost?
* Another reference that I removed was , as it links to a list of news articles rather than a single article. (Note to self: the article is actually at . Must add back in.)
* I've added the Template:update, as the figures in that section relate to 2005 numbers. Can someone please update them to 2006 numbers?
* I've made judicial use of Template:fact throughout, to indicate where things need to be referenced.
--Mike Peel 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost section rewrite 

message: I'm uncomfortable with the current classification of Space Shuttle Explorer.  It appears on the shuttle infobox, in the list of orbiters, and even in the Orbiter Vehicle Designation article as OV-100, even though the article clearly explains that OV-100 means vehicle 0.
I realize that it is a full size mockup, but it was made as a tourist attraction, not for any meaningful purpose.  I have some of the same reservations about Space Shuttle Pathfinder, but at least Pathfinder was used by NASA as a test article, and it is mated with other actual hardware.
I think Explorer should be removed from the shuttle infobox, and the list of orbiters.  It needs to be clearly defined as a mockup, made for tourist purposes.  In fact, I would support a sub-section of the actual orbiter section that lists signifigant mockups (for example, Space Center Houston's Space Shuttle Adventure), but as it stands I feel the Explorer and to some extent the Pathfinder are being misrepresented, when in fact they are not even close to the 5 flight ready vehicles and Enterprise. Cjosefy 01:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with that myself. There's also Ambassador which was at KSC when I was there some years back (certainly it was there for the STS-39 launch, not sure how long after). I don't know whether that was renamed to Explorer or went somewhere else? Mark Grant 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a table similar to those used in the Apollo program articles.  Hopefully it is cleaner and easier to understand. Cjosefy 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that out - Explorer's out of the OV-x list now. The list states that OV-098 for Pathfinder is unofficial, but it does get used, so that ought to stay as a designation, but IMHO she shouldn't be on the list of Shuttles. Shimgray | talk | 09:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I'd like to see references to OV-098 as honorary rather than unofficial because I think that better conveys the sense in which it is used (and also since some NASA websites refer to it as OV-098).  Explorer is definitely unofficial (and doesn't really make any sense; see the explanation of what OV-100 means in Orbiter Vehicle Designation). Cjosefy 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Shuttle Explorer