Talk:Space Shuttle program

Program logo and commemorative patch

This is a retroactive commemorative, NOT the program's logo!

Yes, this patch is much prettier than the program's official logo, but we are not in the business of historical revisionism. It merits inclusion in the article, but should go in its own section where it is made clear it was the winner of a contest. The space program infobox is intended to display the program's logo. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Interpretation

I am unsure how to correct the grammar in this sentence, as its meaning is unclear: "One impact of Columbia was that one the future launch vehicles planned to go into operation after the Shuttle program was concluded, was that Ares I had a special emphasis on crew safety compared to other considerations".125.236.202.112 (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Ground infrastructure could be summarised

There is a section on Support vehicles - Suggest we add or reference the STS ground infrastructure too - eg the launchpad developments eg Rotating Support Structure, and the orbiter processing facilities. - Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Vague fact

In the 'Accidents' section there's an unexplained and unreferenced sentence portion which reads: "...and some fatal accidents on the ground during launch preparations". Unclear as to how many Shuttle personnel died in 'fatal accidents on the ground' (well, "some") and what type of fatal accidents occurred. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Check out List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents#Other non-astronaut fatalities. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Space Shuttle program

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Space Shuttle program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Artemis home":

• From Orion (spacecraft): NASA. "NASA: Moon to Mars". NASA. Archived from the original on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
• From Artemis program: "NASA: Moon to Mars". NASA. Retrieved 19 May 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Shuttle-A" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shuttle-A. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Cause of Columbia accident

Regarding edit 19:12, May 6, 2020 "Space Shuttle program" ‎ →‎Columbia 2003: After a conversation about the shuttle Columbia disaster, I looked it up on Wikipedia (“Space Shuttle Program”). But unfortunately, in section "Columbia 2003," the explanation for its disintegration during reentry cannot be true: “The accident began when a piece of foam shed from the external tank struck the leading edge of the orbiter's left wing, puncturing one of the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panels that covered the wing edge and protected it during re-entry.” All tanks are shed even before achieving earth orbit and most certainly long before reentry. But with a little tweaking, the sentence was made to make sense (“The genesis of the accident occurred”). It’s time to don my editing hat. Minor Edit: The word “began,” replaced by “genesis,” makes no mention that the cause of the damage to the wing happened many hours prior to shuttle Columbia’s demise The reason for my edit was that, as it stood, the sentence made it seem like the foam hit the tile at the same time the accident occurred on reentry. Which of course was impossible since the external tank had long since been ejected. A simple rewording of said description will hopefully dispel any notion that the carbon tiles were damaged from a source (the external tank) that was not even present at the time of the ship’s disintegration. Apachegila (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

After spotting my edit, user Sycamoregrad stated. “That is actually not really a change, it's just more words--aside from the question of whether a genesis can begin.” I beg to differ. Wikipedia shows my edit, or “change,” in the article’s View History page, and calls it a revision. One synonym for “revise” is "change." That is incontrovertible. Furthermore, contrary to Sycamoregrad’s wonderment, there is no question about the wording used because any alleged redundancy simply cannot be inferred from the phrase “The genesis of the accident occurred.” It did not read “The genesis of the accident began.” Since the basis for undoing/reverting my changes was wrong on both counts, the hope is that my changes will stand the test of time. To be clear, unlike the article’s earlier reading, the Columbia “accident” did not “begin” when the foam damaged the wing early on. The ship’s disintegration “began” when the damaged heat resistant paneling turned out to be no match for the intense heat generated by the craft’s reentry into the atmosphere. Apachegila (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• Apachegila, you are being redundant even here. And note that I gave this a title--you had simply dumped the previous comment in an already existing thread. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Once again, Drmies's claims don't hold water (see Sycamoregrad above). In addition to the inaccuracies already noted, he makes a false accusation about redundancy without ever bothering with the particulars. And even still, so what? It is a talk page. Also, how can section Vague Fact be a thread when there is only one contributor? I guess he hasn’t sewn anything lately. On the other hand section An Edit (how descriptive; Bravo!), with its give-and-take, might actually qualify as one. As for undoing (for no apparent reason) my attempt to clarify the article proper, perhaps Drmies should take a hard look at the salient guidance in Help:Reverting, where it cautions against unnecessary interference. Each time he has weighed in, it can hardly be considered constructive, And all the while, thanks to its reversion, the part of the article in question still remains bewildering. Instead of all the naysaying, won’t he try his hand at it? Apachegila (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Apachegila, if you want a better heading for a talk page post, next time don't just dump your remark in a post from last year. And why do you assume I am a "he"? If you don't know me, try "they". Drmies (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"United States Space Shuttle" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect United States Space Shuttle. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#United States Space Shuttle until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"Shuttle A" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shuttle A. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Shuttle A until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

"NASA Shuttles" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NASA Shuttles. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#NASA Shuttles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 12:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial failures

I think most readers would agree that when a mission is a ‘partial failure’ at the very least (most of) the crew managed to make it back alive. Yes, technically it was a partial failure because since it happened on re-entry some objectives were reached, but the impression it gives is very misleading; I would perhaps even call it lying with the truth. I also note that on the Space Shuttle article the mission is classified as a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't say how many crew-missions in STS, and between how many different people, or total mass of cargo launched

Article Doesn't say how many crew-missions in STS (about 700?), and between how many different people (355 per List of Space Shuttle missions). ... That article has (same) ref saying "There have been 848 total shuttle fliers (852 including STS-135 crew)." - Rod57 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"First crewed flight" should be "first orbital flight"

The ALT flights were crewed. The "first crewed flight" should be rewritten to "first orbital flight". 47.222.210.38 (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 18 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duranandrew6264 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Duranandrew6264 (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Added meeting photo between wernher von braun and james fletcher

Fletcher and von Braun at Apollo 15 launch - GPN-2000-001620

Hi all, please review or copyedit as needed. I think its important to include this photo just to provide a bit more color and history of the apollo program vs. space shuttle program. Theheezy (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:SYNTHESIS. It's implying that they are talking about the shuttle program, which of course we have no way of knowing without citing a source that specifically says that. I don't see how it's relevant here at all, and have removed it. BilCat (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You’re correct, my mistake. Just trying my best here 🙂 Theheezy (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's Okay. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it, per Wiki guidelines. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely correct. This is indeed WP:SYNTHESIS, it may be *correct*, but it doesn't mean that it's not WP:SYNTHESIS. Either way, this photo is linked on Spanish wikipedia so no hope of it disappearing. Theheezy (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)