Jump to content

Talk:List of Space Shuttle missions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.86.214.95 (talk) at 03:04, 25 May 2009 (→‎Other Shuttles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured listList of Space Shuttle missions is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2005Featured list candidatePromoted
October 30, 2008Featured list removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured list

Complete list

I am new to editing Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm going about this wrong, but if Enterprise is included in the list, Pathfinder should also most definitely be included. It, too, has never flown (never meant to), but it is a full Space Shuttle. I leave this editing to those who know what they're doing. ;)

It's only a simulator, isn't it? Enterprise is at least a functional shuttle, no? —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a list of space shuttle missions, pathfinder can't be included because it never did anything but logistic ground tests. The inclusion of Enterprise looks to be only the free flight tests. These are clearly differentiated from the actual shuttle missions. So, the unstated rule is that a shuttle had to have free flight. It could be argued, though, that ALL the approach and landing tests should count, even if it Enterprise was mated to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. Note that I DO NOT agree with this idea, but since we don't have a stated inclusion criteria, the argument could be made. Cjosefy 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

  • All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C, STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It helps people add content, but it is misleading because those with no information appear as blue links and not red. But, in fact, if the template was not ready, I would never add the crew list for STS-55, as I did just now. Optim 14:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the exact equivalent of species articles consisting solely of an empty taxobox, which I trust would never be allowed. Evercat 14:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Im responsible for putting these templates up, and the idea is to help people like Optim out. I believe they add value because the provide a starting poiint for people and they will standardize the look of Space shuttle missions, which helps overall comprehension as well as improving look and feel. I do not believe that they detract from the ability to add information to the Wiki any more than stub pages do. The template provides a link to summaries of space shuttle missions that are in the public domain, so that content can be easily and quickly added, or if somone is just searching for information they can find it Theon 14:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • Changed to keep, as I it trust all of them will fill up at least to stubs now. I don't like vfd being a place to bring sub-stubs into attention to be fixed though. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete, unless filled with contents soon - just filling the table and list the crew would be enough to keep them. andy
      • I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
          • I am adding crew lists. I hope it's enough to make people understand why we need the templates. If there was no template, I would never make those contributions. Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
    • Keep as stub or merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Ugh. Absolutely do not merge. The current situation is better than a merge. Evercat 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed w/ Evercat Theon 14:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • No! do not merge! Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Just a matter of adding basic content (crew etc) - basically copy & paste from NASA's pages - to make stubs of them. Fredrik 15:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. They are useful. However, somebody should go to List of space shuttle missions and mark the pages with no content with a star (*). Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Creating a useful framework for information is just as valuable, and the results worth keeping, as information itself. In any event, there is implied information (ie. "STS-61-C" was a Space Shuttle Mission") that is equivalent to a stub. I suppose Theon could add this sentence or something similar if it makes deletionists happy, but I don't really see what it adds. Jgm 15:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Alright. I myself will try to add some details to most some of these pages, either today or tomorrow. Evercat 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - will try to complete all the mission patches - Texture 17:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Decumanus 20:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - Rlandmann 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep; they're being added to. Give Theon a little time and maybe lend a hand... - Seth Ilys 23:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ordering

It would be nice to be able to find somewhere an explanation of why missions are not in numerical order. For example, STS-107 (Columbia accident) was preceded by STS-113 and will be succeeded by STS-114. Jdavidb 19:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

When a Space Shuttle mission is first planned, it is assigned an STS number (example STS-113). During planning and training for that mission, it may fall behind. Another mission may prove to be more critical and may get moved up in the launch order. The missions keep their original STS numbers, but may end up being launched out of sequence. Error 404 17:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added a number for the order of American shuttle flights, even though it is a simple numerical count (except for Buran) because this assists the reader in finding his or her way around the table; and because it is a pain to try to stare at the table and count to find out which was the 108th shuttle flight (or whatever). It also helps show the contrast between actual order and planning order. -- RandomCritic.

Good work. it looks good. Mlm42 03:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reusable spacecraft

Should this article really be 'List of reusable spacecraft missions' and include SpaceShipOne, et. al.? Also, the only thing left to be done for this list (IMHO) is to complete the Notes field on the remainder of the entries. -Joseph (Talk) 19:32, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Prospective entries:
Date Mission Name Agency Vehicle Launch Site Landing Site Note
June 21 2004 SS1 15P MAV SpaceShipOne Mojave Mojave First commercial manned spaceflight
September 29 2004 SS1 16P MAV SpaceShipOne Mojave Mojave X-Prize flight #1
October 4 2004 SS1 17P MAV SpaceShipOne Mojave Mojave X-Prize flight #2

-Joseph (Talk) 19:52, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I'd say no to including SpaceShipOne cause it is a "space plane" not a "space shuttle", otherwise you'd have to include other ones like the X-planes or even some of the high flying SR-71s. MBisanz

Landing sites

Are the landing site listings all correct? Weren't at least one or two missions diverted to White Sands? --Matt McIrvin 21:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possibly. There is certainly cleanup work to do. However, this is data that wasn't there before, at all. -Joseph (Talk) 21:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Somebody fixed STS-3... I went through looking for later missions that landed at Edwards. Think I got them all, but I could have missed one or two. --Matt McIrvin 22:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Country flags

I don't see much of a point in including these flags.. especially since they're all american except one.. sure maybe some day one would hope to have more countries (but also it seems efforts are becoming more and more international); so i'm considering removing the entire Agency column. Mlm42 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Launch site column is pretty pointless.. How about something like Landing Date, or Duration? I changed the format of the table slightly to make it fit on my screen better, too. Mlm42 23:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might make an argument against the Agency column, but I think the launch site part can be useful. There is definitely variance there. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:22:18, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
yes but just because there's variance doesn't mean we should make it seem so important that it gets it's own column.. it's my understanding that the two main launch sites are basically right next to each other anyway.. i don't know much about space shuttles, but it seems to me that that column, and the agency column could be replaced with something much most interesting and important. Mlm42 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STS-300

i noticed the STS-300 article, shouldn't that be included on the list, or only when it is actually called upon? Boneyard 12:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's mentioned in the first section of the article.. whether or not it should actually be on the list may be up for debate, since we're including future missions anyway.. it is kind of a special case, though. Mlm42 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So.... then... where is the list of shuttle missions?

Future Missions

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

Dates of future missions

Isn't it bad to show dates for future missions seeing asa how they NEVER launch on the dates planned! It is misleading, and we all know it. Maybe we should put future or planned or unsure in that date box instead to be less ambiguous. → J@red talk+ ubx  23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with you. I want to know the dates of the future shuttle missions. What's wrong with that? I think, it's interesting to see the scheduled launch dates. And if every future mission is so successful like STS-121, I see no problems for the further flights. -- STS-Chris 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order number

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

16 or 18

The list has 18 future missions while Mike Griffin has indicated many times, including after STS-121 flight, that there are only 16 missions left, 15 to assemble the ISS and 1 to the Hubble. It seems to me therefore that the list includes two non-existing missions. Which ones ? 193.56.37.1 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! STS-131 and 133 are Contingency Logistic Flights. These missions will take place only if it is necessary. So the last scheduled missions are STS-130 and 132. -- STS-Chris 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled/not flown missions

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

Cancelled Shuttle missions --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Template:STS

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

Dates

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

Capitalisation

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

Ares

Why is there an Ares launch on the list. I know it is Shuttle-derived, but it is not a Shuttle itself. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just true and since nobody seems to care about it being held in there, I now will kick it out. It simply isn't a space shuttle. It's as simple as that. There are no Saturn rocket starts listed either! Just the wrong place for an Ares launch to be listed, sorry. ColdCase 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STS-133

I'm wondering... the page states that the STS-133 mission is only called STS-133 if the STS-131 and STS-132 are flown (I personally added that it would be called STS-131 if not, but it already read "STS-133 if CLFs are flown", so it would only be correct to assume that it's called STS-131 if they are not flown, if that is what this statement wanted to say). But to be honest, I think those mission numbers don't change! That is why there are sometimes high numbers early in the program and low numbers later... because they were planned in that order, but not flown in that order (or not flown at all). The last shuttle mission is already called mission STS-133 and I think it doesn't matter if the STS-131 and STS-132 (which would both be flown before STS-133) missions are flown, the STS-133 mission is STILL called STS-133 since all its planning took place under this name. So maybe we should just write down "133" and nothing about "if CLFs are flown" or so... in my opinion and understanding of NASA numbering, there is only one STS-131 mission, and it is not sure if it takes place. But there is for sure one STS-133 mission, and that is the last one and not one of the CLFs, it's the Endeavour mission on 9. July 2010, and it will be the last mission and flight of the space shuttle program. Anyone who knows more about that or agrees/disagrees?? ColdCase 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, please, forget it!! I messed up the mission name and the number of the flight in correct order! Sorry about that... that's just my fault. There's no problem! It would be flight 133 if the CLFs are flown and it would be 131 if they are not flown, just from a numbering point of view. The name of the mission is correctly stated as "STS-133". Excuse my stupid me ;) Again: No Problem, no discussion necessary. Over and out ColdCase 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list

Hi. For a featured list, this page doesn't seem to have many references. Please can someone add some before I feel a review of the list's featured status is required. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Flight Statistics

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

Seems like a good way to format them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updeated the shuttle stats template, but they haven't gotten on to this article page yet. Maybe someone else can figure out why.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standardization in the use of italics

There should be standards defined in the use of italics. For instance, for the MPLMs, sometimes the names are italicized, and sometimes not. What is the rule ? Hektor (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

STS-119 "Never flew"

  • I find it strange to have "Never flew" next to STS-119. Furthermore, if it had been flown as a rescue mission, it would have been in 2009, not in 2008. Hektor (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a rescue mission for STS-126 have been STS-319, not STS-119, I am going to change it to STS-319 since it would have been an STS-3xx mission, so people are not confused.--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia bans original research, there is no source about STS-319 existing, you cannot call it this way. Hektor (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually not original research. I made the change based on the STS-3xx article and what has been discussed on the talk page there. It was stated rescue flights are labeled with the flight number(STS-319 for STS-119). So therefore it is not original research. Also I know the rules, I am not stupid or incompetent.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the preceding comment was deleted by Hintss (talk · contribs). I have restored it as no justification for its removal was made. This action does not necessarily reflect on my opinion of the statement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree, in fact I disagreee with the whole list of not flown mission; the reason is that the list is not comprehensive, there are lots of missions which were not flown after Challenger for instance, they are not in the list either. Why put emphasis on the 3xx series ? Maybe we should have two articles, one with the flown missions, one with all the unflown missions. Hektor (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's totally useful to individually list all these missions. If we slightly improve the "contingency missions" section, it should be clear enough in my opinion. The primary reason they were included, was because they were talked about in press confs etc, but they are now mostly a part of history. But, reading about this suddenly made me remember that several other "unflown" but planned missions are missing in this list. These are some of the missions that were designated before challenger, and most of them were defense related launches (to be launched from SLC-6 Vandenberg) if I remember correctly. Several of the missions of '86 and later were simply re-designated, but I clearly remember reading that several were cancelled altogether. If someone has more info on them, that might be nice to add. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol. this is really funny. I posted this several hours after I initially wrote it (got distracted and the tab got lost in all the other browsertabs). And I noticed the edit conflict, but only several hours later I see that Hektor said almost the exact same thing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Shuttles

Why is the Buran listed as "destroyed"? Wasn't it purchased by a museum in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdconod (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Braun was destroyed in an accident. It was being stored in a hanger at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, when the hanger collapsed, destroying the Braun space craft.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Buran listed within the US Shuttle programs? It seems as if its similar appearance has led to it being lumped in with the US program, but the US and USSR weren't even getting along all that well at the time that Buran was an active program. Both its lone mission and the only flight-ready vehicle appear in the lists. I believe that Buran should be on a totally different page.

Flawed stats

The total amount of flights is flawed 132, with only 126 missions listed, "someone" har added more flights on the active shuttles than they done. RGDS Alexmcfire

Future missions STS-131 and STS-132 assigned to the wrong shuttles

STS-131 is assigned to Discovery, STS-132 to Atlantis [1] --Lenard Lindstrom (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Space_Shuttle_missions&oldid=292145914"