Talk:Space Shuttle program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Space Shuttle program was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 22, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
June 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


How long is the program? The link to this page says 33 years. The first line if the article says 1981 to 2011 (30 years). Two paragraphs later, the article states the program started in the 1960s (50+ years). Please pick one program length and stick twith it.


The link for reference number 3

Brooks, Dawn The Names of the Space Shuttle Orbiters. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accessed July 26, 2006.

is no longer functional: [1] . Could someone fix the link or remove the reference? Njerseyguy (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The data here is inconsistent with other data. For instance: The longest shuttle mission is attributed to Columbia in 1996 (according to this page and the STS80 page) however, the Columbia was destroyed in 1986. As such, the data in this article needs be verified by someone very knowledgable to ensure that the data is accurate in this and related articles. 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The data is correct. The "longest mission" statement is verbatim from NASA: [2]. You're mistaken, Columbia was not destroyed in 1986. Joema 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Columbia was destroyed in 2003. Challenger was destroyed in 1986. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The { { shuttle_stats } } table has an incorrect date for the first launch. The first launch was April 12, 1981. The table lists "Apr 13". The source of the data of the table is someplace separate from the article and I cannot find where to edit it. Can someone who does know please fix it? --Charles Oppermann (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shuttle user box[edit]

{{Template:User space shuttle}}
KSC-95EC-0911.jpg This user is a Space Shuttle fan.

Current Event Tags[edit]

Is the 72-hour tab "valid"? By that, do you mean, "accurate"? Of course it is. But the article is about the space shuttle program, not about the December 2006 mission. This tag is absolutely unnecessary, it adds nothing of value to the article, and contributes to tag litter.

By this logic, there should be a current events tag on George W. Bush, since "details may change rapidly as events progress". And hey, Christmas is just around the corner. The article on Christmas has a section on the "Economics of Christmas". Now this year's shopping season may progress in different ways than expected. Should there therefore be a "Current Events" tag on the article on Christmas?

No, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (thank goodness), and we can update it at will. But neither is it a newspaper. Even if something does get updated during this launch, it does not necessitate this tag. Suppose we learn something new about the shuttle program during the launch. Then update it. But there is no reason to suppose that this article is going to change in any substantive, unexpected way over the course of this next mission. Unschool 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Note, this issue is being discussed at Talk:Space Shuttle --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The proposal was withdrawn by nominator

Strong oppose per earlier discussion --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose per GW Simulations. I do see other Shuttle-related article shuffling that needs to be done, but this isn't it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unschool has removed his nomination (see Space Shuttle), so I am closing the discussion. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reusable Spacecraft[edit]

The second paragraph says "The Shuttle is the only winged manned spacecraft to achieve orbit and land, and the only reusable space vehicle that has ever made multiple flights into orbit." I'm not sure if this is in error or not, SpaceShip One acheived orbit twice within 2 weeks. I leave it to someone who knows for sure.

SpaceShipOne was only capable for sub-orbital flights. Not ones that go into orbit around the Earth. Andy120290 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


At the top of the article it says:

"This article is about the NASA Space Shuttle program. For the shuttle itself, see Space Shuttle. For information on the Soviet space shuttle program, see the article Buran program"

Why does it have statistics about the Buran in the same chart as the Enterprise? Jons63 19:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. That needs to get changed. I would put Enterprise in with the other shuttles, and delete Buran from this article. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Buran was nothing more than a publicity stunt - to mention it is an insult to Shuttle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Buran was no more a publicity stunt than the US shuttle was. It only flew once because the government that supported it disintegrated before it could fly again, and the successor governments were too poor to fund the enormously expensive project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvol (talkcontribs) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

shuttle extension study[edit]

AFAIK there's more discussing on extending the shuttle programme beyond 2010, that's what I figured watching a press conference (on air during writing - maybe recorded?) about the upcoming shuttle flight (STS-126). check this:,, -- (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Shuttle budget[edit]

How did you get those 60 M$ incremental costs ? Looks like a '0' is missing at the end ... Just External Tank would be 50 M$ ( then SSME refurbishing, SRB retrieval and refurbishing, tiles, operational costs of infrastructure and so on. 60 M$ just for a fuel ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Operational cost estimate is about $5 000 000 000 per year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Flight Statistics[edit]

According to the current Table of Flight Statistics on this page (as at 3 Sept 2009) Atlantis (270+ days) has been on orbit approximately 4 days more than Endeavour (266+ days). In terms of the number of orbits, the difference between the two shuttles is 390 orbits (in favor of Atlantis). My question is: Normally a shuttle takes about 90 minutes to make a single orbit and that makes 16 orbits per single day. Hence, would not the difference should be 16*4 ~ 64 orbits? instead of 390 ?. Can some one please explain the big disparity between the days and the orbits of the two shuttles ? (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Space Transportation System[edit]

The article entitled "Space Transportation System" is unfortunately inaccurate and reads like an unsubstantiated essay.

That article is not supported by the references. In addition, straight from the horse's mouth, which would be NASA's Kennedy space center, the Space Trasnportation System (STS) is as follows:

"NASA coordinates and manages the Space Transportation System (NASA's name for the overall Shuttle program), including intergovernmental agency requirements and international and joint projects. NASA also oversees the launch and space flight requirements for civilian and commercial use.."

There is nothing about the international space station that is part of this program. That is apparently another program. Nor is there anything about how the "Space Race wound down and the Vietnam War began to take precedence in the minds of U.S. citizens"... that part of the article reads like an usubstantiated essay.

The reference discusses the space shuttle system, comprised of four elements, which makes up at least part of the STS. Then Space shuttle requirements are discussed, then background and status, etc., etc. Some hunting around through these links gets in to some fine detail, but it is still all about the shuttle. This is all related to the Space shuttle, and unfortunately it is probably indistinguishable from the articles entitled "Space Shuttle" and Space Shuttle program".

I apologize but based on this, I am making that page a redirect to the article entitled "Space Shuttle program"----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 03:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


The article says "NASA originally planned to make the Hubble a Smithsonian museum display, but decided to keep it in space until a successor is launched." Was there a plan to bring the Hubble Telescope back to Earth on the Shuttle? Can it do that? Also, the two links that are references at the end of the sentence don't say anything about Hubble. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

STS-144. The reason the retrieval mission did not go ahead was probably due to payload bay space, the fourth servicing mission, and ISS mission needs. Columbia was the only orbiter to still have its internal airlock to be able to carry payloads Hubble-size (that is why she deployed Chandra even though Chandra's mass warranted Endeavour or Atlantis). When STS-118 was allocated to Columbia (her next flight after -107), that meant the internal airlock had to come out to install the ODS, which meant that Hubble retrieval was not possible due to payload bay space. Then the fourth servicing mission went ahead instead of retrieval. -MBK004 05:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I understand now. I was wondering if it was possible to bring Hubble back down, then it would have been better to bring it down, fix the mirror on the ground, and put it back up. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why does the retirement section talk about the Hubble? Someone was copying and pasting without reading maybe? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wreck it[edit]

I should have done this before.... I propose moving the Columbia & Challenger pages from "disaster" to "accident". Comment here. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Arjuna (talk)

Space Shuttle program (5 votes, stays until August 12, 2011) is the US collaboration for August 2011[edit]

Nominated 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC); needs 3 votes by August 12, 2011 (minimum 3 votes per month)


  1. Oldiesmann (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  2. Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  3. JayJasper (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  4. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. (Iuio (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
  6. Dusty777 (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


  • With the shuttle program coming to an end, there's a lot that could be done with this article (details about the final missions and where the shuttles will go, future of the space program, etc.) Oldiesmann (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the historic nature of the United States having for the first time since it sent Freedom 7 into space, not having an active manned space program; with some critics saying it means that the Russians (the successor, therefore continuing in a way the lineage, of the Soviet space program) ultimately won the Space Race, this would make a great article to work on. Furthermore, it is less partisan than say working on the Democrat(ic) Party article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Game plan[edit]

First job would be to look at comprehensiveness - is this article missing anything? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should have more detail about the actual program. Compare with the featured article Shuttle–Mir Program - that article is dominated by a "Timeline" section; I would think this article should have a similar structure. Details of the timeline are currently split between the "Program history" section, and the "Status" section; with most technicalities relegated to the List of space shuttle missions (which is unsatisfactory). So perhaps the way forward, seeing as the program is over, is to merge the two sections "Program history" and "Status" into a unified "Timeline" section, which could then be further organized and expanded. Mlm42 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Is anything actually being done on this article? Oldiesmann (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify[edit]

I thought that the word "programm" means a list of steps or some kind of plan. As far as I can see Space shuttle launches were not covered by the One Plan. Launches have different purport, program Mir - Shuttle was unthinkable at the beggining of the Shuttle era. Is using of the word "program" correct in this case? Dodonov (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. It's also used to cover a series of related operations: Apollo program, frex. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Before the Apollo XI moon landing in 1969, NASA began early studies of space shuttle designs.

Fragment If the marked words are an incomplete thought, consider developing this thought into a complete sentence by adding a subject or a verb or combining this text with another sentence.-- (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a complete sentence already. Rmhermen (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 08 December 2014[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Space Shuttle programSpace Shuttle Program – That's how it's formatted in the header of the article. – DNA Ligase IV (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That rationale is weak for two reasons: 1) It would be easy to change the header of the article to match the current title, 2) The infobox at the top of the article matches the current title. This should be discussed as an ordinary move request before being moved. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • X mark.svg Not done Since there's no issue with WP:COMMONNAME, the acid test here is whether it's a proper noun. Please discuss on the article's talk page.  Philg88 talk 19:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - NASA seem to use "program" and "Program" interchangeably. The nominator's rationale are not sufficiently convincing to justify a move so I would recommend sticking with the current title --W. D. Graham 00:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:CAPS and complete lack of a rationale based in guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Report 01/16[edit]

Columbia 2 SS Program efficacy reviewed and approved.

Amanbir Singh. (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Space Shuttle program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Program logo and commemorative patch[edit]

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)