Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Shuttle-Centaur
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list
Shuttle-Centaur[edit]
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
Shuttle-Centaur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I came across this in my reading and decided to create a new article about it. Rather than use an expendable rocket with a Centaur upper stage, NASA decided to put the Centaur in a Space Shuttle. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Text review support (16-02-2021) by Neopeius[edit]
Lede[edit]
- "Shuttle-Centaur was a proposed Space Shuttle upper stage using the Centaur upper stage." Add rocket after "stage"
- "The probes were ultimately launched" Add "slated for use with the Centaur" after "The probes."
- "Titan IV and Centaur G Prime
would placeeighteen military satellites in orbit." replace with "placed"
Background[edit]
- "A rocket utilising liquid hydrogen as a rocket fuel can theoretically lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than one with a conventional rocket fuel like kerosene." Suggest adding "then-" before "conventional" unless kerosene still be the most common fuel for rockets today.
- It is. Atlas V, Falcon 9 Block 5 and Electron (rocket) all used LOX and RP-1 (kerosene). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- "separated by a common bulkhead. There was no internal bracing.." Suggest "bulkhead; there was..." to tie it to the preceding colon better.
- "Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." This is an odd line since we never learn of its critics in this brief background.
- Suggest separating out the following two paragraphs with a new subsection entitled "First Centaur operations"
- "the Mariner mission to Mercury" "Mariner 10"
- "the last of the
unmannedexpendable launch vehicles." uncrewed
Space Shuttle upper stages[edit]
- "The original concept called for a crewed space tug," add "Shuttle" before "concept"
- "In April 1978" add comma after "1978"
- "The main
problem withthe IUS" deficiency of
- "most engineers regarded as inelegant and which" comma after inelegant
- "a smaller one with 2,700 kilograms (6,000 lb). This was sufficient" Suggest "a smaller one with 2,700 kilograms (6,000 lb), which was sufficient"
Deep space probes[edit]
- "
TheJPL" delete "The"
- when the alignment of the planets
wasfavorable to using Mars" replace with "would be" (relative tense)
- "It was also hoped that
itwould be able" replace with "Galileo"
- "It would be the fifth spacecraft to visit Jupiter, and the first to orbit it, while the probe would be the first to enter its atmosphere." As of this paragraph, there is no separate probe. In the original concept, was the whole thing going to plunge into Jupiter, or was it a bus and probe combo? As it stands, "the probe" seems to refer to the whole spacecraft, making "while the probe" superfluous.
- "was added in structural changes to improve reliability. This would require additional fuel in the IUS" Suggest "improve reliability, in turn requiring additional..."
- "While a Mars slingshot was still possible in 1984, it would no longer be sufficient." Sufficient for?
- "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward" A less judgmental word or set of words would be preferable (less costly, less time consuming, etc.)
- The source says it was a mistake not to have gone with Titan IIIE, failing which it was a mistake not to have gone with Shuttle-Centaur. The driver of the whole thing was the decision that all future space launches would use the Space Shuttle. That necessitated everything that followed. There were a lot of undesirable consequences, some of which are detailed in the final section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- How about "In retrospect, doing so would have proven cheaper, faster, and safer than the option ultimately chosen, but..." Also, I suggest swapping the two paragraphs (lead with the shuttle-centaur -- then when you get to this line, you're discussing something already known to the reader rather than leaving it hanging for the reader to find out.) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- The source says it was a mistake not to have gone with Titan IIIE, failing which it was a mistake not to have gone with Shuttle-Centaur. The driver of the whole thing was the decision that all future space launches would use the Space Shuttle. That necessitated everything that followed. There were a lot of undesirable consequences, some of which are detailed in the final section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- "there was a disdain for expendable launch vehicles" by whom?
Added "at NASA".
- "Moreover, Titan had been developed by, and was owned by, the USAF." and therefore?
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur[edit]
- "The probe and orbiter" add "Galileo" before "probe"
- "Thirdly, unlike solid-fuel rockets which burned" comma before "which"
Congressional approval[edit]
- "The decision to go with Centaur pleased
theplanetary scientists" delete "the"
- "NASA Headquarters liked
itas an answer" "Centaur"
- "a former astronaut who walked on the Moon" "who had walked on the Moon"
- "whose
electorate" "district"
- "the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space and he supported" comma before second "and"
- "San Diego
electorate" "district"
- "NASA Administrator James M. Beggs" add comma after "Beggs"
- "contamination observed during early Space Shuttle flights, meant that" delete comma after flights
Management[edit]
- "In a letter to Alan M. Lovelace, the acting Administrator of NASA
, in January 1981," suggest "In a January 1981 letter to Alan M. Lovelace..."
- "John F. McCarthy Jr." comma after Jr.
- "The cancellation of the NERVA nuclear rocket engine caused a round of layoffs," add "had" before "caused"
- "experience was with NERVA and this was" add comma after NERVA
- "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced, with 28 months on it from January 1984 to April 1986." Suggest "A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced with 28 months on it, from January 1984 to April 1986."
- "Two missions were scheduled:" "Two Shuttle-Centaur missions were scheduled:" Also, this is an abrupt way to start a section (mobile readers may not read the preceding) so perhaps add a date or additional context.
Outcome[edit]
- suggest retitling subsection to "Preparation and cancellation"
- "that safety improvement to the Space Shuttle" "improvements"
- suggest new subsection before final second paragraphs: "Legacy and current status"
- "Over the next 18 years, Titan IV with Centaur G Prime
would placeeighteen military satellites in orbit." "placed"
@Hawkeye7: Excellent work. Please ping me when you've reviewed and acted. --Neopeius (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Balon Greyjoy[edit]
Background[edit]
- Style choice, by I would use {{Main}} to link to the Centaur page at the top of the section.
- "particularly attractive prospect" Remove "particularly," as the point already gets across by saying it's an attractive propsect; it comes across as WP:EMPHATIC
- "The development of Centaur was dogged by technical difficulties..." Are these the same issues as discussed earlier about cryogenic fuels and hydrogen leaking? It should be explained what the difficulties are. Also, I would replaced "dogged," as that strikes me as a figure of speech.
- "radical weight-saving features" I would argue the features are no longer radical if they have a successful track record. I would remove "radical."
- "The technical problems were overcome," Which technical issues are being referred to here? It's not clear.
- "...Centaur ultimately outlived its competitors, and most of its critics too." What competitors are being referred to here? The Titan rockets? Also, I would remove "most of its critics too," as that's comparing human lives to a hardware program, and it's not like the Centaur has remained unchanged since the initial development.
- "handling liquid hydrogen proved crucial to winning the Space Race" I would remove this and just state it was used in the Saturn V and Space Shuttle. I understand that it's important for the Saturn V, but there are so many other developments that enabled Apollo 11 to land on the moon that I think it's a stretch to call any one of them a "crucial," since they were all important in some way or another.
- "(albeit with the internal bracing that Wernher von Braun preferred)" This isn't necessary when discussing the Saturn V upper stages; it's clear that they are different rockets, and it's not implied that it uses no internal bracing by saying that it used liquid hydrogen as fuel.
- "Centaur was placed atop the United States Air Force (USAF) Titan IIIE" This makes it sound like the Titan IIIE was already a launch vehicle that had a Centaur added on top of it, but as far I can tell, the Titan IIIE was the Titan III booster with a Centaur upper stage. I would say that it was used for the Titan IIIE.
- "create an even more powerful launch vehicle system" This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; upper stages are exclusively used to make the launch vehicle system more powerful. As far as I can tell, this isn't different than a Centaur being added to an Atlas rocket.
- "impressive record of 53 successful missions against two failures." This comes across as WP:PUFFERY; remove "impressive record."
- Remove "Titan IIIE-Centaur was only used seven times" as the launch record is already stated above, and while seven launches isn't the most of any launch vehicle, I think stating it was "only seven launches" makes it sound like the program was unsuccessful, when it was just replaced.
- It wasn't replaced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- Personal opinion here, but I think it can be argued that that Titan IV eventually replaced the Titan III, even though it didn't also have the Centaur upper stage like the Titan III-E. Regardless of the debate on the significance of its seven flights, it's stated twice in this section. My take is to remove the second mention. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's a stretch to say that the Titan IIIE was viewed as the last expendable launch vehicle. While Mr. Wilford and Mr. Beggs believed in the future of the Space Shuttle, the development of the Titan IV indicates there were still efforts being made towards expendable vehicles.
- Either remove "Nonetheless, a cautious USAF ordered ten Titan IV rockets in 1984" or just say that they ordered ten Titan IV rockets. Adding "Nonetheless" comes across as WP:EDITORIAL, and using "cautious" has a bit of a negative connotation that the Air Force wasn't embracing the new technology.
- "The USAF was approached for assistance, and an agreement was reached on 11 July 1974..." Saying the Air Force was approached personifies the Air Force and makes it sound more casual than such an agreement would be. I would say something like "A joint NASA-USAF agreement released on 11 July 1974 commissioned the development of an IUS"
- "A series of study contracts were let, resulting..." Is there more info on these study contracts (who conducted them, what the results were, etc.) to explain? If not, I would just add on to the previous sentence that the ultimate result was an expendable solid-fuel upper stage.
- I would shorten the national defense explanation about Galileo. While interesting, it has little to do with Shuttle-Centaur, other than the Galileo mission being a motivating factor for the program. Maybe just state that USAF scientists wanted to improve autonomous and radiation-hardened spacecraft with an interest in applying it to their own satellites.
- The Galileo national defense paragraph personifies the USAF by saying it was interested in Galileo's autonomy and radiation hardening. If those phrases are left in the section, I would say something about it being USAF satellite engineers (or the like), not the organization as a whole.
- "But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight..." To what is this compared? This makes it seem like the IUS was accidentally overweight and needed to be slimmed down, instead of what I assume means it had to carry more propellant for the heavier probe. I would just state that the three-stage IUS and probe were 3,200 kilograms above the Shuttle's current capacity.
- "special lightweight version of the Space Shuttle external tank" Is this just referring to the LWT? I would link to it specifically.
- "Space Shuttle orbiter stripped of all non-essential equipment" It's not really clear what non-essential equipment is here. Does that mean no other payloads would be carried, or does this mean significant changes have to happen to the orbiter (removal of internal storage compartments, reducing seats on board, planning for a short-duration mission that only focuses on the probe deployment)?
- "While a Mars slingshot was still possible in 1984, it would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupiter." The order of this makes it a little confusing. If a Mars slingshot would be possible in that the probe could reach Mars but can't make it to Jupiter, it wouldn't be helpful for the Galileo mission; I would state that delays until 1984 meant that the probe couldn't reach Jupiter, even with a Mars slingshot.
- "In 1979, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Transportation Systems, John Yardley, directed the Lewis Research Center to determine the feasibility of integrating Centaur with the Space Shuttle. The engineers at Lewis concluded that it was both feasible and safe." This is pretty wordy, and personifies the Lewis Research Center. I would combine these sentences. Yardley launched the study and directed the Lewis engineers to conduct it, who determined it was feasible/safe.
- Paraphrase the quote given to Thomas O'Toole; it's not a quote from someone of particular notability, and doesn't say anything that profound beyond that the Centaur is a powerful upper stage.
- I would remove "In retrospect, this would have been the best way forward, but this was not apparent in 1979" It sounds like the page is providing commentary, even though it is a sourced opinion. NASA decision makers did not know about the Challenger disaster and were hopeful about the future of the Shuttle, so this commentary makes it sound like willful ignorance instead of making the best decision with the info they had.
- "disdain for expendable launch vehicles at NASA" This is pretty strong; "disdain" makes it sound like there was hatred towards expendable launch vehicles, rather than a belief that the crewed Shuttle would be the better option. I would remove it and state that national policy was that all launches should used the Space Shuttle.
- It isn't really clear what the USAF-NASA issues were (the way its written personifies both organizations). I would rephrase it to say that NASA management did not want to use a USAF-controlled launch vehicle, because of difficulties during previous joint missions (and state what the issues were).
- I would just state the Ulysses renaming without going into the backstory.
- "The ESA would therefore supply the sole spacecraft" Remove "therefore"
- "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun; engineers joked that it would never be closer to the Sun than when it was sitting on the launch pad in Florida." Since it's not stated that the spacecraft would make a close approach, I think this can be left out. Regarding the joke about being close to the sun, while it's funny (and correct), I don't think it belongs in this description either.
- The last two Ulysses sentences are wordy. Combine the last two sentences of the Ulysses description; something like: "Like Galileo, the Ulysses probe would travel out to Jupiter, where it would use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane."
- That would not be correct though; Galileo was not leaving the ecliptic plane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- My proposed description may have been off, but as it stands in a wordy way of describing the Ulysses mission. I would combine the sentences.
- Reworded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- The final sentence made for an abrupt end to the paragraph; I combined it with the previous sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- My proposed description may have been off, but as it stands in a wordy way of describing the Ulysses mission. I would combine the sentences.
- That would not be correct though; Galileo was not leaving the ecliptic plane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur[edit]
- "not in favor of using Centaur" This article has the word "utilising", but has American English here. To satisfy MOS:ARTCON, one national variety should be used. As this is an American program, my viewpoint is that it should be MOS:AMERICANENGLISH, but I definitely have my bias towards the American spelling variety.
- Is there a way to tie in the Senate support for Shuttle-Centaur? While it's a part of the story, it seems out of place that the Senate makes a decision and the paragraph ends making it seem like NASA could and would disregard any Congressional order.
- "price tag" seems informal; I would replace it with "cost"
- When describing the cost of $506 million, that makes it seem like it's a per-unit cost, but I'm assuming its development of the IUS. If so, that should be changed to make it clear what that price is referring to.
- The pricing scheme is a tough to follow. From reading this, my understanding is that the Air Force paid the major development fees (the $506 million) and NASA was on the hook for $179 million to make the three-stage IUS. Since this was considered as a joint Air Force-NASA program, it really isn't clear how one organization was prepared to pay for most of the development and NASA was unable to pay its minority share.
I'll be back with more comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Were the four advantages listed the official reasons given by NASA for selecting Centaur? This reads more like a commentary on the two programs instead of the reasoning to use it. They are good points to bring up, but the section is about the decision to use the Shuttle-Centaur, so it shouldn't have commentary made by non-decision makers.
- Assuming that the advantages are left in
- The power advantages/time saving should be quantified; it's not really clear how "good" a two-year flight time is.
- The two sentences about the advantages of the time reduction are wordy and could be combined. I would remove the commentary-sounding "This was not merely a matter of impatience" and just state that longer flight times had more wear and tear and used more energy/propellant, and that gravity assists require closer passes to the sun.
- I would combine the sentences about the second advantage, and instead of saying that it was gentle, state that its lower thrust generation resulted in reduced jerk on the probe.
- I would explain the flexibility provided by using a restartable engine. I'm assuming the advantages are mid-course corrections and multi-burn flight profiles.
- It's confusing to say that Centaur was proven and reliable, but then state that solid rockets were safer. Was the concern for safety of the Shuttle crew or the mission as a whole? If it's the latter, it seems like safety and reliability are somewhat interchangeable, as not getting the probe to its destination is a fail regardless of what caused the failure.
- The astronauts' sole concern was for the safety of the crew. They weren't concerned about the unlikely event of Centaur not working correctly (like the IUS on STS-6). What they were concerned about was not the failure of Centaur but of other Space Shuttle components such as the main engines exploding when they went to full power (never attempted), or shutting down (which actually happened more than once). In that case, they would have to dump the fuel in the Centaur and attempt to land. Solid rockets like the IUS were considered safer than liquid ones, but ironically it was a failure of the Space Shuttle's supposedly safe solid rocket boosters that killed the entire crew of the Challenger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- It just occurred to me that you can't dump the fuel from a solid, so in the event of an abort with the IUS on board the Shuttle would have to land heavy. On STS-51-D Discovery blew a tire on landing because the landing gear was not intended to carry the ultimate weight of the Shuttle. Doing that at KSC would have put the Shuttle in the swamp. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The astronauts' sole concern was for the safety of the crew. They weren't concerned about the unlikely event of Centaur not working correctly (like the IUS on STS-6). What they were concerned about was not the failure of Centaur but of other Space Shuttle components such as the main engines exploding when they went to full power (never attempted), or shutting down (which actually happened more than once). In that case, they would have to dump the fuel in the Centaur and attempt to land. Solid rockets like the IUS were considered safer than liquid ones, but ironically it was a failure of the Space Shuttle's supposedly safe solid rocket boosters that killed the entire crew of the Challenger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Congressional approval[edit]
- The first and last paragraphs don't appear to have anything to do with Congressional approval, so they appear out of place in this section.
- If the first paragraph is kept and relocated, I would reduce it and state that heavy-lift advantages. I would remove the part about pleasing planetary scientists and welcomed by the industry; it's enough to say that its lifting capabilities can lift heavier satellites/probes.
- Industry and scientists were important NASA constituencies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- That those groups make up important NASA constituencies is important, but it's not clear how they factor in to Congressional approval. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Industry and scientists were important NASA constituencies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- The IUS flight isn't really relevant to Centaur, other than that the IUS was mentioned as a competitor program. Its mission success doesn't have any impact on the Centaur, and it's not really fair to compare the success rate of a flown spacecraft with something unflown.
- Its lack of success meant that there was no alternative to Shuttle-Centaur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- But the IUS was successfully flown on later missions; this makes it seem like the program was a failure instead of having a bad first mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Its lack of success meant that there was no alternative to Shuttle-Centaur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would remove the organizations that are unhappy with the Centaur choice, because it seems like their disappointment is just because they didn't receive the contract, not a decision based on the merits of the competing programs.
- That's not the point though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to put words in their mouths, but I think the issues that Boeing and the MSFC would have with Shuttle-Centaur would be related to NASA deciding to go with another option. I'm sure there was a belief that the IUS option was inherently better, but I think that's tough to separate that from the pursuit of funding that any aerospace contractor would want. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the point though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would remove "vociferously" when describing Schmitt's opposition; while I have no doubt he believed in Centaur, there's not other mention of his opinion or work on the matter, and adding a superlative like vociferously makes it sound like he led the charge.
- I would remove "(a common practice in the USAF)". While I can't speak to what your sources state, there are regulations against Air Force organizations getting a contract without a tender process. I'm sure it still happens, but it's a stretch to say that the common practice in the Air Force is to violate this process.
- Similar to "vociferously," I would remove "staunchly" when describing Sen Lowery's actions; there's no further explanation of his actions.
Design[edit]
- Why isn't the Magellan description under the probes sub-section? It seems like it would be more fitting there,
- The article is in chronological order, and the decision to use Shuttle-Centaur with Magellan and MilSat came after Shuttle-Centaur had been authorized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- But it seems out of place, since the section is titled "Design" and then the start of the paragraph is another mission that was approved for it. I think trying to keep things chronological is good, but this belongs under the discussion of the probes. Since Shuttle-Centaur never flew, its not like these launches have to be kept in some sort of order. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The article is in chronological order, and the decision to use Shuttle-Centaur with Magellan and MilSat came after Shuttle-Centaur had been authorized. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- "dealing with them was not always easy. Telephone conversations with General Dynamics regarding the project had to be conducted over secure phone lines." This makes it sound like Air Force contracting personnel were unpleasant partners, when instead it seems more like they had to follow procedures for handling classified material. This makes it seem like the Air Force is to blame, when a defense aerospace contractor would presumably have the infrastructure, capabilities, and experience to work on classified projects.
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't really think its necessary to specify that development was conducted over secure telephone lines, as that would be the expectation with any defense contract of this nature. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- "with a 10-centimeter (4 in) stroke known as the Super*Zip separation ring" I would reword this, as "stroke" isn't a term that the average reader will be familiar with; it's not listed on the spring (device) or coil spring pages either.
- Stroke length refers to the amount of compression a spring can be put under safely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I learned that (admittedly after some Googling). My point is that I don't think that's a common term that a casual reader looking for space history pages will understand. My take is that the amount of compression in the coil springs isn't an important detail to someone trying to understand Centaur deployment, and can be removed entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Stroke length refers to the amount of compression a spring can be put under safely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would rephrase "or the planet below" as that makes it sound more like a dangerous collision for both objects than a Centaur reentering the atmosphere.
- "Space Shuttle" is linked twice before Challenger and Atlantis, and has already been linked in the article. Also, it's linked twice before both orbiters in the lead.
Management[edit]
- "which they claimed had experience with cryogenic propellants and more experience with the Space Shuttle, which they regarded as a complex system that only their three centers understood." This is wordy starting two phrases with "which they"
- "its experience with Centaur was the greatest of all the NASA centers; it had managed the successful Titan-Centaur project" This is a little repetitive; I would rephrase/combine the statements.
- This is something that I think should be addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- "and it boasted a highly skilled workforce where the average engineer had thirteen years of experience" I'm assuming all space centers had highly skilled work forces? It's not really clear that thirteen years, on average, of experience makes Lewis the superior center.
- Are there names for who signed the agreement between Lewis and JPL instead of saying the centers signed something.
- "all responsibilities necessary to integrate the Galileo spacecraft with Centaur and the Space Transportation System." I would paraphrase this or cite the original document that it's from (looks like the actual MOA)
- It is but I don't have access to the MOA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would paraphrase it then, to avoid Wayne Gretzky, Michael Scott-type quotation.
- It is but I don't have access to the MOA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would remove the sentence about morale being low; it's a generalization for the entire workforce and also difficult to quantify.
- It is supported by the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The workforce morale at Lewis doesn't appear to have any impact on the Shuttle-Centaur project with the way the article is currently written. I would leave it as the NERVA cancellation-related layoffs caused many experience workers to retire. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- It is supported by the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would replace "older hands" with something like "many of the most experience engineers elected to retire"
- Are there more details about the "vigorous campaign" to save the center? As far as I can tell, that's the only mention of it in the article.
- More details are available, but the article would be drifting off topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would remove mention of it then, since it doesn't seem to affect the narrative of the Shuttle-Centaur project. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- More details are available, but the article would be drifting off topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Remove William Robbins's nickname from the link
- There's a lot of name dropping within this paragraph; I would consider cutting back on the names of non-leadership workers (Maj Files, Szabo, Muckley, Spurlock, Nieberding), as these are typical roles for a project like this.
- While plenty of the individuals mentioned were important in the development of the Centaur, most of the individuals name-dropped don't really appear throughout the rest of the article. They're non-notable individuals, so I don't think it's important to mention every single manager on the project.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- It also details the organisational structure of the project. And Nieberding does reappear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Although most of his experience was with NERVA, so this was his first experience with Centaur, but he was an experienced project manager. He handled the project's administration and financial arrangements." This is really wordy. Maybe something like "He was a project manager who had previously worked on NERVA, and he oversaw the project's administration and financial arrangements."
- "He brought with him six USAF officers who assumed key roles." This is a little confusing; I'm assuming this means he appointed six USAF officers into key roles? My first thought when reading it was "brought with him from where?" Also, seeing as Files is a major, I feel like the officers he brought were pretty junior ranking; are the roles they assumed particularly notable/important, or were they just Air Force officer billets? This makes it seem likes its out of the norm to appoint them.
- He was promoted soon after. The point is that USAF officers were integrated into the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would just combine the sentences. Also, the way it currently reads is that he was a Air Force deputy project manager, as if there was an Air Force project manager (I'm assuming Maj Files worked directly for Robbins). Maybe rephrease it to say that Maj Files was the deputy project manager, and led a 6-person USAF team. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- He was promoted soon after. The point is that USAF officers were integrated into the project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- "an old hand" Old hand comes across as colloquial; I would reword it.
- "interference in their work by Johnson" I would avoid shortening the name for the Center and making it appear like it was interfering; maybe explain how JSC administrators could interfere with an element vs. payload?
- "but differed over trade offs were acceptable." I'm assuming this should be something like "...over which trade offs..."
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Under Stofan, the Lewis Research Center budget steadily increased..." It seems a little confusing as this talks about budget increases, which are true in terms of the monetary amount, but the amounts adjusted for inflation reflect the budget going down and then returning to its original levels.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- The second, third, and fourth paragraph provide a ton of detail about the Lewis Center as a whole, and while the center was critical to the construction of Shuttle-Centaur, it seems like an unnecessary amount of big-picture detail when the article is about a single project at the center.Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Preparations[edit]
- I would remove the nicknames from the links for Hauck and Van Hoften
- Since STS-61-G never flew, I think Fabian's replace by Thagard doesn't require an entire sentence, but instead something like "John Fabian, who was later replaced by Norman Thagard, and James Van Hoften."
- "they would fly into a very low orbit, just 170 kilometers (110 mi)" I would refrain some saying things like "very low" and "just 170 kilometers" since that seems to provide uneeded commentary on the mission parameters, and maybe say "into a low 170 kilometer orbit"
- I would remove the list of astronauts in the caption of the SC-1 rollout, as it's really long, and instead mention them by name in the paragraph. Their names are in the file's page as well, so it's not like the info isn't available to someone taking a close look at the photo.
- "which was the best that the Space Shuttle could do with a fully fueled Centaur on board" This makes it sound like the low orbit was the best the Shuttle could do in the event of an in-flight issue or failure; maybe something more like "which was the hightest orbit the Space Shuttle could achieve with a fully fueled Centaur"
- Reorder up the deployment-Space Adaptation Syndrome section; it's a little confusing why the 7 hours post-launch deployment is significant until later in the pargraph. Something like "Satellite deployments were not normally not scheduled for the first day to allow for astronauts who came down with space adaptation syndrome. Both Shuttle-Centaur crews were composed of astronauts that had already flown in space, which allowed the probes to be deployed seven hours into flight.
- I would move Hauck being a project officer up to when the crews are described; it's disjointed that the crews are introduced, the mission summary is given, and then its goes back to the crews.
- "key Shuttle-Centaur meetings, which was unusual for astronauts" This doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since it's not like there were other Shuttle-Centaur flights, so other astronauts wouldn't be attending key Shuttle-Centaur meetings. Also, if he's a project officer for it, wouldn't Hauck be expected to attend meetings about it?
- I would link the aborted mission profile to [[Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Ascent_abort_modes]] and shorten the sentence; something like "main safety issue concerned an aborted mission during the ascent." Also, its wasn't just a failure of the main engines that could result in not reaching orbit, so I wouldn't single it out.
- I don't think it needs to be specified that a Space Shuttle abort was dangerous as is without the Centaur.
- "was a concern for the astronauts, who feared fuel leaks and explosions" This makes it sound like either the astronauts were the only ones worried about this and nobody took them seriously, or that they were worrying too much. Either way, I think the potential loss of a mission and crew was a concern for a lot of non-astronauts as well.
- I would remove the Young quote; it's just a nickname he had for it, and there's only one more mention of his concerns, and nothing specific. Plus, they needed to make the Centaur more difficult to destroy than bullseying womp rats with your T-16.
- I spent some time thinking about the quote, and ultimately decided to add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why include it though? It's just a nickname Young had for it, as there's no explanation on why he thought it called it that, and it's not a particularly fitting nickname (as it would be for a military space station or the like). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is: the playing of the Star Wars theme music. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that has anything to do with Young's quote; a song that was played during an event that Young didn't attend doesn't seem to be a likely reason that he would give the spacecraft a nickname of a space station from the movie that music is from. If it was, that connection is not clear to the reader. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- The quote appears in every reference. An explanation that Young (incorrectly) considered the mission to be be excessively risky is provided. The question is: if the quote is removed, will I be accused of whitewashing Shuttle-Centaur, resulting in one of those NPOV tags? What is your reason for pressing for its removal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- My argument against it is that it's not really clear what is meant by "Death Star," as it can imply powerful and good, evil, or just some thing that explodes. Young's concerns are already voiced throughout the article, and his concerns are well-explained. I find adding a nickname he had to just be an extraneous detail, especially when the analogy between the nickname and the Shuttle-Centaur isn't really clear. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- The quote appears in every reference. An explanation that Young (incorrectly) considered the mission to be be excessively risky is provided. The question is: if the quote is removed, will I be accused of whitewashing Shuttle-Centaur, resulting in one of those NPOV tags? What is your reason for pressing for its removal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that has anything to do with Young's quote; a song that was played during an event that Young didn't attend doesn't seem to be a likely reason that he would give the spacecraft a nickname of a space station from the movie that music is from. If it was, that connection is not clear to the reader. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is: the playing of the Star Wars theme music. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why include it though? It's just a nickname Young had for it, as there's no explanation on why he thought it called it that, and it's not a particularly fitting nickname (as it would be for a military space station or the like). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- I spent some time thinking about the quote, and ultimately decided to add it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "to a fanfare not seen since the days of Project Apollo" I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the national events around Apollo and the moon landings to a rollout of a Shuttle payload to a crowd of 300 that were mostly the employees that had worked on the project. Also, was only Star Wars music played?
- The point is that nothing like it had occurred in the decade since the Apollo landings. The sources support this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- The Dawson & Bowles source says "excitement had rarely been seen since the glory days of the Apollo program" which doesn't describe the fanfare of the actual event. An impressive fanfare implies large crowds and notabile attendees; there were certainly events bigger than 300 attendees in between Apollo-Soyuz and August 1985. Even in the realm of spaceflight, every Space Shuttle launch certainly had a larger crowd and more coverage; Ronald Reagan attending the STS-4 landing could be considered a bigger event as well. It seems arbitrary and unfounded in actual metrics to describe the Centaur rollout as the biggest of these events. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The point is that nothing like it had occurred in the decade since the Apollo landings. The sources support this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Who were the dignitaries giving speeches? Were they anyone particularly notable, or senior General Dynamics leadership? If its just the latter, I would leave it out.
- "Concerned that this was too few, Nieberding lobbied Moore to allow the engines to be run at 109 percent. Moore approved the request on the spot" I would combine these sentences, as also rephrase "on the spot," which is a figure of speech. Additionally, I would reintroduce Nieberding, since the reader may not remember him from the many names given in the previous paragraph.
- How many days were now possible launch days with the increased engine output? That should be included
- Remove "supposedly safe", as that comes across as providing commentary on the mission. There is a lot of backstory about the safety approval of the SRBs, but I don't think it needs to be included on this page.
Cancellation[edit]
- "Too many key personnel were involved in the analysis of the accident for the missions to proceed. The earliest they could be flown was in thirteen months." I would just say that the shuttle flights were suspended, since this makes it sound like it was the Shuttle-Centaur flights that were specifically postponed.
- Correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- My point is this makes it sound like it was only the Shuttle-Centaur missions that were delayed as a result of the Challenger disaster, instead of the grounding of the entire fleet. It doesn't make sense to say that the earliest they could be flown was thirteen months, as the entire fleet was grounded for two years. I'm assuming the thirteen months was an estimate made at some point based upon when they thought the Space Shuttle would be up and running again, but it doesn't make sense here, as the Shuttle wasn't flying thirteen months after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Although completely unrelated to the accident, Challenger had broken up immediately after throttling to 104 percent power. This contributed to an increased perception at the Johnson and Marshall Space Flight Centers that it was too risky to go to 109 percent." Who in power had this perception? While everyone is guilty of bias, it makes it seem like NASA decision makers disregarded facts and went with their feelings on increasing RS-25 power, which I assume is not the case.
- The sources don't single out anyone, but the fact remains that they were never run at 109 per cent on any mission. In testing in 2018 and 2019, the engines were run at 113 per cent without problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- While it's true that the SSMEs were never flown at 109% despite successful tests at that level, it's speculation to say that this decision was made because of the Challenger disaster when there isn't an official account of this being the reason. According to the source, the pre-Challenger opinion of the JSC and MSFC was opposing 109% thrust, so it's not like their stances only changed after the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- The sources don't single out anyone, but the fact remains that they were never run at 109 per cent on any mission. In testing in 2018 and 2019, the engines were run at 113 per cent without problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- "Foreseeing the possibility of using the flight hardware with Titan, the USAF decided to..." I would rephrase this since it personifies the Air Force; the organization can't foresee or decide something. Since the next section shows that Air Force did purchase the flight equipment and used it on Titan, something like "The USAF purchased the Centaur flight hardware from NASA to use on Titan IV missions"
Legacy[edit]
- Add/link the spaceflights for the Galileo and Ulysses deployments
- Replace "just two" with "two" as that comes across as commentary; the reader should understand the difference in time
- The high-gain antenna damage description comes across as speculation on possible causes; was there an official NASA report on what caused it that can be referenced?
- I would rephrase "Ulysses had to wait even longer" since the satellite isn't "waiting," maybe shorten the sentence to "Ulysses was launched a year later on the IUS, on 6 October 1990"
- Move the photo of the dedication ceremony down to the legacy section
- Shorten the caption of the dedication photo to the first sentence. The names/positions of the individuals described in the caption are already in the section, and Kavandi, Ross, and Oberg are pointed out in the image's description.
- "A prolonged period of time in the vacuum of space followed where bare metal touching could undergo cold welding." I'm assuming this has to do with the damage to the high-gain antenna, but this comes across as just a fact about cold welding without explaining how it's a problem or linking it to Galileo. Also, I'm no material scientist, but I would think that the time spent in the vacuum of space to reach Jupiter regardless of the launch platform could cause cold welding. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Balon Greyjoy: Any actionable issues remaining? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891[edit]
- Planning to comment throughout this week. Do ping if I forget. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Eddie891: pinging... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- "It adopted the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family" maybe add a time frame to the Atlas rockets for context?
- "and thew of the RL-10 engine exploded on the test stand" Thew? What does a 'test stand' test?
- Engines. Linked to engine test stand. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Marshall Space Flight Center to its Lewis Research Center in Ohio." why does only one get a state?
- "Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 probes to Jupiter and Saturn; " did the two probes both go to each planet, one to each, or something else?
- "By 1980, Centaur had recorded 53 successful missions against two failures." are the two failures relevant? Would it be worth adding what caused them?
- Wikipedia keeps score in Centaur (rocket stage)#Mishaps. I think we'd be off on a tangent here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "The decision to use the Space Shuttle for all launches augured badly for the projects" I'd like a time frame for this sentence to anchor the reader as it's the start of a new section
- " interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle" I'm not clear what the IUS would do?
- "They reached an informal agreement" what was the agreement?
- Added "reached an informal agreement that the USAF would develop an interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle
- Is sullivan's opposition or McLucas's endorsement relevant at all? I think you can go from "They reached an informal agreement and after some debate..." without losing anything.
- what is a "study contract"?
- " expendable solid-fuel upper stage" does not mean anything to me -- could it be clarified, or is it already and I'm just being stupid
- There's three space age concepts here:
- expendable - as opposed to reusable. The contrast here is with the space tTug, whose NERVA nuclear engine could be refuelled and restarted.
- Solid fuel - as opposed to using liquid fuel, like Centaur and NERVA, which used liquid hydrogen.
- Upper stage. Means one of the stages of a multi-stage rocket other than the big one on the bottom. Each stage has its own engine and propellant. Centaur was an upper stage originally developed for use with Atlas.
- expendable launch system and upper stage are already linked. Linked solid-fuel.
- There's three space age concepts here:
- "What saved Galileo from cancellation " Why would it have been cancelled?
- "pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one" honestly, no idea what either of these mean
- In a pressurized aircraft, the cabin is maintained at a pressure greater than that outside. For a spacecraft, there's no air outside, so venting will mean that it operates in a vacuum. This is easier to do, but creates other problems, because metals can spontaneously weld when they come into contact in an airless environment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "about 3,200 kilograms (7,000 lb)" is that a lot or a little?
- "when a Mars slingshot would no longer be sufficient to reach Jupite" why?
- " but this would have added at least $125 million (equivalent to $362 million in 2019) to the price of the $285 million (equivalent to $826 million in 2019) Galileo project because it would have required rebuilding the launch complex at Cape Canaveral" suggest rearranging to "but this would have required rebuilding..., adding at least..." to place the reason earlier
- "In retrospect," maybe this sentence could just be "Nasa historian Heppenheimer later wrote that"?
- "would have to work closely with the USAF, something that NASA management hoped to minimise" I think "hoped to avoid" or something else-- for some reason the sentence as is doesn't flow well for me, but not sure why
- "It was never intended to make a close approach to the Sun. " not sure what this sentence adds"
- "but Centaur was chosen as the best option." when? At the 1983 meeting?
- "were hardened against" what does hardened mean in this context?
- some more to come. It's probably painfully clear this is not my area of expertise... Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- "Appearing before the Senate a few days later" A few days after what?
- "Instead, NASA decided" not immediately clear to me what this is instead of?
- "The problem was that" I think this could be dropped with no loss-- was probably not the only problem...
- Not familiar with what 'geosynchronous' means
- A geosynchronous or Clarke orbit is one where the satellite is at an altitude where the rotational speed of the satellite matches that of the Earth, so for an Earth observer, the satellite does not appear to be moving at all. If you do the math, that works out to be 35,786 kilometres up. Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- The sentence beginning "Senator Harrison Schmitt," feels like it could be broken into two, it's got a lot of commas and is very windy.
- The first paragraph in design seems absent a citation?
- "and Congressmen" perhaps "representatives", being both more specific and avoiding the awkward gendered language followed by a woman's name?
- "William H. Robbins was appointed the head" date?
- "with space adaptation syndrome." I know there's a link, but I think a brief gloss would be apt-- ideally explaining why seasoned astronauts would avert the problem
- " one that in fact " can probably drop "in fact"
- This gives a good analysis from the technical/matter-of-fact side of the story, but was there any public opinion? Reaction to the cancellation? Other commentary? There may not be, and that's OK Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
- Put cites 96 and 98 into title case
- Cite and bibliographic formats otherwise good.
- Spot checked links, all OK, except the Aborts link is broken
- Spot checks of ISBNs and doi's revealed no issues--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good, supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.