Talk:Space Shuttle design process/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

This material is heavily POV and judgemental. I'm working to revise it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joema (talk • contribs) 17:48, January 31, 2006

Some problems

The article repeats many "traditional wisdom" items about the shuttle, but in many cases these are wrong, or inconsistent with authoritative statements.

Examples:

Wikipedia: "a high launch rate was needed to make the system economically feasible...roughly one or two a week"

This conflicts with Thompson's statement: "Hell, anyone reasonably knew you weren't going to fly 50 times a year...We never thought you'd ever get above 10 or 12 flights a year."

References:

• CAIB Transcript 4-23-03
• CAIB Transcript site

Wikipedia: "Decisions to cut short-term development costs have resulted in a continued high-cost maintenance schedule."

The biggest reduction in development cost was eliminating the reusable flyback booster. It's very unlikely that increased maintenance, and in fact Thompson says pressing ahead with the flyback booster (even if funding was available) would have probably doomed the entire program. If this means reusable liquid fuel strap-on booster, that would increase, not decrease maintenance. It's unclear what short-term development costs were eliminated that resulted in high cost maintenance, or what the basis of that statement is. Joema 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Other changes

Made multiple changes to improve readability (see Elements of Style) and factual accuracy. Joema 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Reworded 3rd paragraph in retrospect section. This is an encyclopedia article, not a Usenet debate. Please discuss any further changes to this section here. Joema 20:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC) The space shuttle has killed more people than any other manned space vehicle; it has in fact killed more people than all other space vehicles put together!. It has nothing comparable to an escape tower. The ejection system during gliding is dubious at best. The foam that damaged Colombia was put there specifically to prevent ice forming and damaging the shuttle in the same manner when it fell off. It is in many ways fundamentally dangerously incompetently UNSAFE. That's not being judgmental, that's stating a fact. Saying that any vehicle could be as unsafe if the people running it were as stupid as NASA doesn't excuse or remove those design faults. There. Now why the hell shouldn't that criticism be put int the '20/20 hindsight' section?!ANTIcarrot 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC) You're free to state your opinion here in the talk page, on Usenet, or the street corner. However the article itself is an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is simply to describe the stated topic, not pass judgment on it. An encyclopedia doesn't analyze or critique -- that is left to the editorial page of newspapers and investigative reporters. That is why the articles on Adolph Hitler, Evolution and Pro-pedophile activism do not contain elaborate critiques. Joema 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Get off your high horse; and stop hiding behind word games. The lack of anything comparable to an escape tower is not an opinion, it's a fact verifiable to anyone with half a brain and a picture of the space shuttle. If you do not appreciate the implications of this lack you should think twice before editing a page on a subject you do not understand. Unless you can provide evidence that these lacks do not impede the shuttle's safety (and challenger is pretty damn good evidence that the absence of an escape tower is pretty damn unsafe) stop imposing you *own* opinion on the article by deleting these FACTS.ANTIcarrot 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC) FWIW escape towers aren't a panacea. The European version of the space shuttle Hermes (shuttle) found that a launch tower/escape capsule idea didn't work well at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfkeeper (talk • contribs) 15:05, June 27, 2007 Exactly correct. A shuttle launch escape system certainly would not have prevented the Columbia disaster -- you can't eject at Mach 18, even with a cabin ejection system like the B-1A and FB-111. It's unclear whether it could have saved the Challenger crew. The first four shuttle missions had ejection seats, but there were significant doubts about clearing the SRB exhaust plume. What about ejecting the entire cabin? The B-1A and FB-111 used such a system. The B-58 and XB-70 had capsules around each crewmember. Experience with such systems has not been positive. A cabin ejection system relies on a complicated sequence of pyrotechnic devices, any of which could be compromised by the breakup. E.g, rocket-powered guillotines sever conduits and cables, the cabin must clear an airframe that is torqued and distorted by the breakup, stabilization devices must deploy, landing air bags must deploy, etc. Experience with prior cabin ejection systems indicates they are very heavy and often don't work. Discussing these things are OK on Usenet, discussion forums or this talk page. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should maintain an encyclopedic tone and focus. The purpose of this article is to document the decision to build the NASA space shuttle, not provide a soapbox for an anti-shuttle diatribe. There's a separate article that has been created for that purpose: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program. Joema 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

changing section name

I'm starting this purely out of personal curiosity. What was the thinking behind the edit changing "Decision Making Process" → "Decision-making process"? I don't dispute the change in the least, but I'd like to be aware of the thinking behind it is all.
— V = I * R (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style for the capitalization, and then the hyphen was more correct than not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the capitalization I completely understand... that was just a mistake on my part. What I'm really curious about is "the hyphen was more correct than not". What makes the hyphen more correct then not?
— V = I * R (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 result of the move request was Move.
— V = I * R (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

NASA Space Shuttle decision → Space Shuttle conception — In order to match the section title at Space Shuttle program#Conception (1960-1970s) that this article expands upon.
— V = I * R (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat suspicious, given the old discussions above, that the original intent of this article was to create some sort of content fork by splitting this article from it's Space Shuttle program parent. Regardless of the original intent though, the length of the Space Shuttle program article does legitimately create an opportunity for splitting. It seems apparent to me that the editor who did create this article either wasn't a native English speaker, or something... The point being, the current article title is... clumsy. I'm not particularly attached to using "Space Shuttle conception either (that title is somewhat clumsy as well), but I can't think of anything better, and that is what the current section title is on the Space Shuttle program page. The addition of a NASA prefix to the title, as is done currently, is completely unnecessary in my opinion.

Anyway, if anyone has an better ideas for a page title please feel free to share them. I considered Space Shuttle history myself, but that seems a bit too open ended.
— V = I * R (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose neither title works well... I suggest NASA post-Apollo manned space launch system design process or NASA Space Shuttle design process 76.66.193.221 (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Space Shuttle design process" seems like it could be a decent choice. Note however the omission of NASA as a prefix. The main article: Space Shuttle program, is not prefixed with "NASA", and I think that is appropriate since there are no other operational "Space Shuttles.
  — V = I * R (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  That doesn't matter since there have been other shuttle programs, and one of them was at one time operational, and in a few years, NASA's won't be operation either. 76.66.193.221 (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  If you feel strongly enough that the (quickly abandoned) Buran (spacecraft) program actualy has enough public exposure to cause confusion when it comes to the use of the term "Space Shuttle", then I highly recommend that you start a discussion about that at either Talk:Space Shuttle and/or Talk:Space Shuttle program. Barring a change in at least those two articles, I see no reason why this (sub)article should be distinct.
  — V = I * R (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - current title doesn't make sense. --GW… 08:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Space Shuttle design process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:47, 7 August 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.