Talk:Space Shuttle

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

Capacity figure for polar orbit

I've placed a "citation needed" on the figure for maximum capacity to polar orbit:

Payload to Polar orbit 12,700 kg (28,000 lb)

(This was added in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Shuttle&oldid=402377328 - I've sent a message to the editor.)

As well as the figure being unsourced, there are other issues here.

1. The altitude of the polar orbit in question is not given.
3. Nor is the value for the number of degrees of inclination, although I think people more expert than I could work out a range for this number.
5. Finally, and most importantly, other sources appear to contradict this figure. That said, they are not entirely consistent with each other.

• At https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/launch.html, we find:

 "Using OV-103 (Discovery) or OV-104 (Atlantis), the cargo-lift weight capability is 29,600 pounds for a 98-degree launch inclination and 110-nautical-mile (126-statute-mile) polar orbit. Again, an increase in altitude costs approximately 100 pounds per nautical mile. NASA assumes also that the advanced solid rocket motor will replace the filament-wound solid rocket motor case previously used for western test range assessments.

 The same mission at 68 degrees inclination (minimum western test range inclination based on range safety limitations) is 49,600 pounds.

 Performance for intermediate inclinations can be estimated by allowing 660 pounds for each degree of plane change between inclinations of 68 and 98 degrees."

 (666.66 seems more accurate than 660, but I digress)

• https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2599/1 and https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/589823/teal-ruby/ describe a cancelled mission that would have placed a spacecraft (2000lb according to one, nearer 6000lb according to the other) in a roughly 740km (400 nautical mile) altitude polar orbit at 72.5 degree inclination. Using the above figures, the maximum capacity to that orbit would have been 17,600 lb.
• https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/vafb-slc-6.htm mentions an Air Force colonel "admitting that the Air Force built SLC-6 to put 32,000-pound payloads into polar orbit"
• Space Shuttle Reference mission 3B was to recover a 25,000 lb satellite from a 100 nautical mile polar orbit.

NOTE: A lot of these figures may have been given at the planning stage, and may not be indicative of the Shuttle's actual capacity after it was built. I have found an unsourced claim online that Reference Missions 3A and 3B stopped being design constraints at some point.

Plus, of course, the Shuttle never actually flew a mission to polar orbit!

For these reasons, I've put a "citation needed" on the polar orbit figure. And without altitude/inclination, I think that there's an argument for deleting it even with a citation.

AstridRedfern (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional - I used the calculations from https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/launch.html to get a rough figure for the capacity for a 90 degree polar orbit at the altitude given, but it wasn't even close to 28,000 pounds.

AstridRedfern (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't refurbished and reused be a better term to use than just reused?

The Space Shuttle was never just flat out reused, it needed to be refurbished first, which of course involved taking apart most of the shuttle and then putting it back together, and the SRBs needed to be fully taken apart and have a lot of parts replaced, unlike a falcon 9 booster or falcon heavy side booster (center core is not quite reusable yet, since every center core fell in the water) which can just be checked over and then flown again a few weeks later, so I think refurbished and reused would be a better term instead of flat out reused. Kadermonkey (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

File:STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly - edit1.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:STS-129 Atlantis Ready to Fly - edit1.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for April 12, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-04-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The John F. Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, Florida, is NASA's primary launch center of human spaceflight. Launch operations for the Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle programs were carried out here. This photograph shows Space Shuttle Atlantis at Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A in the evening before the launch of STS-129, a mission to the International Space Station in November 2009.

Photograph credit: NASA / Bill Ingalls; retouched by Bammesk

Recently featured:

• Ploughed Fields ('The Furrows')
• Red-billed streamertail
• BASE jumping

Standardized page number citation format

@GraemeLeggett: Some, but not all, of the instances of references using {{rp}} have been replaced by the {{sfn}} format. Both of these formats are listed as acceptable options under WP:REFPAGE. Per WP:CITEVAR, pages shouldn't be edited solely to modify the citation style. As use of the {{rp}} is the style used on this page, I am reverting these changes to keep the page's citation style standardized throughout. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Is me adding content about SpaceX mission to Mars okay? - NO

I added it before but it was reverted, starting an edit war by accident. I would ask to see if it is approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:2B00:9B1C:1200:C51D:BBBF:2F21:859B (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How would SX mission to Mars be relevant to this article about the space shuttle ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Weird search stuff

I went online to search for OV-106 (the spare parts) and when I looked at pictures it gave me something about a Space Shuttle Daedalus. Does anyone know what this is? Anonymous9149779879789 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What is this???

???

Pure fiction: that's the name used for a Shuttle in the movie Space Cowboys (you know, the one with Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner). A simple Google search will tell you this. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Lots of overlap with space shuttle orbiter

Wouldn't it be better if this article just summarised space shuttle orbiter rather than duplicating content ? In a few cases this article has more detail than space shuttle orbiter - eg mention of the external airlock. - Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

O-ring criticisms repressed rather than "ignored".

The word ignore carries a connotation of over looked rather than what happened which was that NASA management actively threatened the contract of Morton Thiokol, and tried to technobabble the congressional investigation that the O-rings wouldn't lose resilience in cold. A cheat exposed by Richard Feynman in testimony before congress where he proved by direct example that the rubber did lose resilience. That's not ignoring the problem. That's repressing criticism of it. Another word could be rejecting criticism. NASA took an active role in it. Using a passive word like ignored is inaccurate. Passive words are not substitutes for neutral words. 98.164.76.40 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)