Talk:List of Space Shuttle missions

STS-133 and STS-134

It would appear that STS-133 and STS-134 have been switched in the order that they go (the orbiter that performs each one has also been switched so that each orbiter remains in its original time slot). see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html

• Done! I corrected the list to reflect the recent changes made.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cancelled Shuttle missions --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ares

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

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)

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)

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Back on topic, what's the deal with STS-119? It is listed as both flown and not flown. In addition, the link on the "never flew" mission directs to the flown mission's page. Perhaps it should be included once in the regular list with a note specifying the nature of the postponement. --Anon

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)

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)

I am in doubt that the contingency missions should be listed in this page. They are no more than pre-planned rescue missions that would be flown should the need arise in the unlikely situation, therefore the presence of them in the list is only making the list even more confusing. Given that there is a STS-3xx page, maybe we should move the "special mission" part into that page? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.214.95 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Concur. The article should be split into "US Space Shuttle Missions" and "USSR (?) Space Shuttle Missions." Oh wait, there was only one... Most of this material is about the US Program and the two vehicles have little other than the vehicles' outer appearance in common. Will do so in a few days if no discussion. ThreeE (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Buran should be removed. I would oppose adding "US" to the title, as the US programme is the most common use of the term. If anything, "Space Shuttle" should be capitalised, as when referring to just the US programme it is a proper noun. --GW… 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Also agree that Buran should be moved.--192.231.40.3 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Buran was a space shuttle, this list shows space shuttles and their missions; I don't understand the fuss; the Buran should stay. I'm more curious about the Boeing X-37 as flown by the U.S. Air Force in 2010. Is this not also a "space shuttle"? Shouldn't that mission, however vague, be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.195.209 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Should the ALT tests be removed from the list?

I think that the 5 ALT tests flown by Enterprise should be removed from the list. These are definitely not "space shuttle missions" as defined in any sense: well it might have flown in the air, but certainly not into space. I have a feeling that including these gliding tests will only confuse the readers even deeper. Given that there is an even more comprehensive list in the Approach and Landing Tests, I think that the five "missions" should be removed from the list. Any comments? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think they should be removed. Maybe adding sub-orbital test flight to the notes for each one, but removing them would be a little much. They are important events in the space shuttle programs history. I say keep them.--NavyBlue84 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could add STS-135 to the planned missions

since STS-135 is approved by NASA and seems likely to get political/funding approval ? Rod57 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Made a start. Rod57 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Launcher configurations for each STS mission

Should we mention in the table what STS-xxx mission used what SRB-xx/ET-xx combination - it currently mentions the orbier-names. The three major components of the launch system are those (Orbiter, ET, SRBs). See also here. Alinor (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Future of this article

As the NASA Space Shuttle program winds down -- with the certainty that, whatever the future of NASA's manned spaceflight mission is, it is not going to be in shuttles -- I'd like to open discussion on the final form of this article. Obviously, it isn't going to have a 'planned missions' section any more, but what else can be done to make this article better laid out, more comprehensive, and more informative? I suspect that statistics need review, at the very least.RandomCritic (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibilities for more information would be to add a "Payload" column, which lists the primary payload, possibly with masses included (at the moment this info is in the "Notes" column). Also, although it may increase the size of the table, information that seems to be "missing" from the table is the names of the crew; but the table would probably expand in size a lot and end up looking much like List of human spaceflights to the ISS.. unless there's a way to add a "show crew" feature to each line of the table, which is hidden by default? Mlm42 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Day" and "Year" columns could be combined into a "Launch date" column. And maybe a "Docking" column would be useful, which would contain either nothing, "Mir", "HST", or "ISS" (or others I'm forgetting..). Mlm42 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've combined the Day and Year columns, and added a "Docked with" column. Maybe a natural way to split of the table would be to split it into "Post-Challenger disaster" and "Post-Columbia disaster" sections, since these were both followed by long stretched of no Shuttle flights. Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra Dash in Mission Titles?

Is there a reason all the Space Shuttle missions between STS-41B and STS-61D are denoted on this page (and almost every other shuttle- or astronaut-oriented site that I've browsed through) are shown as "STS-41-B" with the extra dash prior to the alpha character? Kind of a minor deal, but the official NASA records do not reflect this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/list_main.html) so I'm kind of wondering why the past Wikipedia authors do. It would require a little bit of work to fix on all the pages, but nothing impossible. Am I missing something? Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

The dashes are noted in the mission history from KSC, which manages the missions (see here for example). The NASA HQ website has been long overdue for a major overhaul; a lot of the information is outdated or sparse in details and finding the proper locations to get more details from the main page, can be difficult. They are actually in the process of doing a major overhaul, bringing a lot of the satellite sites under one umbrella (for better or worse for the time being), it will be a long time before it is finished. --Xession (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for the info! Ckruschke (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Statistics table doesn't add up

The number of flights column actually totals 133, but the total reads 132. The number of orbits column totals 20,508, but the total reads 20,022. If there is a reason for the discrepancy it should be explained in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaxson (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Split

I am opposed to the proposed split. Instead, lets just delete spacecraft from this article which are not Space Shuttles (i.e. Buran). --GW… 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the split to but the space shuttle title is not exclusive to the Space Shuttle Orbiter. See here. --Xession

You may not be aware of this but "Space Shuttle" capitalized specifically means the U.S. Space Shuttle program, your link talks about the "Buran space shuttle". In fact there's even a quote in there where the Molniya Company (created Buran) refers to the U.S. shuttle as the "Space-Shuttle".--Craigboy (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what exactly is the proposal? The problem seems to be coming from the ambiguity of the term "Space Shuttle", and what this does or doesn't include. I think it's a good idea to have an article (this one) dedicated exclusively to NASA's Space Shuttles (including Enterprise). Including the Buran shuttle muddies the water, so I agree with GW that it should be removed. Mlm42 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible then to rename the article "List of Space Shuttle Orbiter missions" to reflect on it accurately? --Xession (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think any normal use of the term Space Shuttle refers to the NASA Orbiters, so the extra word Orbiter seems unnecessary - and potentially confusing to some readers; but simply capitalizing "Space Shuttle" in the title might be a good move. Mlm42 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

But the correct name for the NASA space shuttle Orbiter is simply, "Orbiter". "Space Shuttle" in common, informal usage by NASA is used to refer to the Space Transportation System. So either it should be "Space Transportation System missions" or "Space Shuttle Orbiter missions". Here is an article referring to the space shuttle without capitalization while this article discusses the "Orbiter". Common usage shouldn't necessary outweigh accuracy in an encyclopedic setting. Any confusion by readers that don't know proper naming conventions for the system could easily be redirected. --Xession (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If Space Shuttle is capitalised, that should be enough to differentiate. I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. In reality, there are no other "shuttles" anyway, just spaceplanes that have been mislabled be the mass media. --GW… 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"In reality, there are no other "shuttles" anyway, just spaceplanes that have been mislabled be the mass media" There are plenty of publications by NASA, which are certainly not to be considered mass media published material, that label the Buran a space shuttle. I've actually never seen the Buran orbiter labeled anything but a space shuttle. Regardless, even if "Space Shuttle" is the most common name for the Space Transportation System, it doesn't negate the ambiguity of the existence of another vehicle also labeled a "space shuttle" and it seems very US-centric to neglect this. Nonetheless, I can see there is no interest in my position and will end further discussion on the matter. --Xession (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

GW is right, we should really be following the WP:COMMONNAME policy for article titles, even though some might argue it's not technically correct. On the other hand, this policy doesn't apply to the actual content of the article, where it may be more appropriate to clarify the terms. Mlm42 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We just need an independent "U.S. Space Shuttle Missions" page, it used to exist but I believe someone changed the name and added Buran to the list.--Craigboy (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. The amount of material related to Buran in this article is so small that there's no reason not to include it. It hardly overbalances the article. When over 95% of the article is about the NASA Shuttle program, and when there is already an article about Buran, calling it a "split" is disingenuous; what is actually being proposed, under another name, is deleting the material about Buran. Now that we know what we're talking about, the question has to be asked: why? What harm does including the Buran material do? Isn't it beneficial for readers to be able to compare Buran and STS at a glance?

I agree that the differences between the systems are sufficient that they should be treated separately. But that can be easily done within the same article by putting the Buran material into its own section -- which I have just done. But why remove it?RandomCritic (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

One reason for removing it, is because the term "space shuttle" isn't a precisely defined notion (for example, the Boeing X-37 is often called a "space shuttle".. should we be including that as well?). On the other hand, the term "Space Shuttle" (capitalizing) is a well defined notion - it refers to NASA's Space Shuttle Orbiter. Mlm42 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is important to include the Buran in an article like this, to allow to compare stats between US and Soviet Space shuttles and remind people that the US aren't the only ones in the game. I do think however that it is unhelpful that when one search wikipedia for 'Space Shuttle' they are immediately redirected to the STS Space Shuttle page, I think it would be better and cause less confusion of this sort if users when they searched for 'Space Shuttle' arrived at a 'Did you mean...' page offering links to both and STS and Buran Space Shuttle pages. I also think the title of this page could be better named to avoid much of the confusion being debated by your good selves above, I think in the title the term 'missions' should be removed and replaced with the term 'flights' as the Buran did not carry a crew so does that qualify it for the title of 'mission'? Hence in the public mind wikipedia users expect to find a page on STS space shuttle flights not Buran also. So in conclusion: I oppose split, I oppose remove Buran from this article and I propose renaming the article 'List of Space Shuttle Flights'. Thanks Markcoulter50 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Support... well sort of. Ouch. The usage of the term "Space Shuttle/ space shuttle" is a real mess. While the most common usage links it with United States' STS, the mass media use this term for a variety of other space transportation systems, notably Buran-Energia and the X-37. Heck, this term does not refer to a winged spacecraft in the literial sense: I can say that the Soyuz spacecraft is a kind of space shuttle, because it shuttles crew between Earth and a space station! I'm afraid the usage of "space shuttle" is as notorious as "heavy launch vehicle" among spaceflight amateurs.
My suggestion: drop all non-STS related missions; re-name the article "List of United States Space Transportation System missions"; write a new article that includes all missions of spacecrafts with wings (or capable of vertical-launch and horizontal landing) that has been flown into orbit (which includes Buran, X-37 etc.). Unfortunately, this begs the question of a clear criteria of inclusion of these spacecrafts (By L/D ratio? We then need a reference for the crteria outside then... urgh!). So... any comments for this? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we remove the Buran info and merge this page with the Space Shuttle program?--Craigboy (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. The scope of both articles is basically the same.. although the list would be a large party of Space Shuttle program, maybe it wouldn't be too large. Mlm42 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point in doing a merge which would only be split again within weeks or months.RandomCritic (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in principal that this article should be about the U.S. Space Shuttle. However, if it is split, would an article on all Braun missions last long on its own? Were there any ALT tests that can be included in that article? If we split the 2, I envision that someone will come along and either A) nominate an article about Buran missions for deletion, or B) suggest a merge of that article with the Buran spacecraft article, which would start another debate here about whether or not the U.S. Space Shuttle missions article should be merged with the orbiter article. If it is being split and both articles are going to be merged into the spacecraft articles, then I fully support that move. If they are split and left as a stand-alone article, then my only concern is that can an article on Braun missions stand on its own and be of a quality and length that the Wiki-Space project is capable of? I don't think it would be fair to split and have one article on U.S. Space Shuttle missions and not one on Buran missions. However if you were to include X-37B and others, and they were to be given equal weight then ok. However, there is not much out there on X-37B.--NavyBlue84 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with covering Buran's flight in the Buran article? --GW… 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. If that is what is agreed upon, I think that the flight stats from the U.S. space shuttle should be moved into the orbiter article, if the Buran flight stat(s) is moved to its article. However, I think with a little work and digging, we can have both as separate articles with out any merge into the specific spacecraft articles.--NavyBlue84 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that we don't need a separate article to list the flights and statistics for Buran. Any such information should go in either Buran program and/or Buran (spacecraft) (if it isn't already there). Mlm42 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Craigboy (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment A few months ago I visited this article as I was not sure which would be the last STS missions. I was surprised to see the section about the Buran but then was glad it was there as it gave the article a more inclusive feel. I then went and looked at the Buran articles. Had this been a "See Also" I likely would not have noticed. Thus, while I don't have strong feelings on if this should be a STS mission page I am leaning towards the current structure where it has a section for the Buran. However, if the article starts getting cluttered with unmanned "shuttles" such as the Boeing X-37B or suborbital "shuttles" such as the North American X-15 or SpaceShipOne then I'd want to split to have a page that lists the STS missions. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• No decision appears to have been made on the 'proposal'. This is not surprising, as the exact nature of the proposed split has never been stated, i.e., what would be the two articles resulting and what material would go into which article? It's not at all clear just what modification of the article is being supported or opposed. Until a coherent and feasible proposal for a split is made, I have removed the split tag as potentially misleading. RandomCritic (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Contingency missions

I'd like to remove the table listing contingency missions from the relevant sections, for the following reasons: first, it takes up space; second, exactly the same information can be found in the linked STS-3xx article; third, all of its information is counterfactual at this point, as none of the contingency flights ever launched. While it was worth keeping as long as there was a chance that there might, at some time, be a contingency flight that was actually a flown shuttle mission, right now it doesn't seem to be an essential part of an article whose main focus is those shuttle missions which actually flew. (We don't list flights that were proposed but cancelled, for instance.) Any objections? RandomCritic (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I object! I think that they should stay, and that all proposed but unflown missions should be added. Just because a mission didn't launch doesn't mean some credence shouldn't be given to it. The LON missions and those like STS-144 (Hubble retrieval mission) could be put in a section called something like "Unflown" or "Unlaunched" or "Proposed missions". Just the two cents of a nut!--NavyBlue84 18:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep them. The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list of missions. Deleting the information because it can be found elsewhere is contrary to that purpose. The fact that these missions did not launch does not change that they were planned for and designated. They belong in the list. Keep. TJRC (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support deletion. For a long time the first sentence of the lead has been "This is a list in table format of all missions flown by space shuttles launched between 1981 and 2011." Given the contingency and other proposed missions were never flown we should either update the lead to match the article content or delete the missions not flown from the list. It appears the "list of missions flown by space shuttles" wording has existed for over a year. With that in mind I'd support cleaning up the Contingency missions section to have minimal content similar to the Cancelled missions section. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Small request

Would it be possible to add a column to the mission list table to indicate which of the two shuttle launch pads each mission launched from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4420:5914:0:211:24FF:FEA1:BFCB (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IDEA: Links to Post Flight Presentation Videos

A column in the table for each mission's Post Flight Presentation video would be awesome. Any table-jockeys up for it?  :) And if you haven't seen the vids, they are amazing. What a great resource! STS Post Flight Presentation Videos are at: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL46C2B72FFEAEE72D Clintonefisher (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

feedback notes

Hi Matthew. Not bad! A few thoughts before it goes back to FLC:

Main table

• Visual - the mission numbers could be centred (and bolded?) above or below the patch, which will look a little cleaner.
• Use "sequence" or "order" rather than "No." for first column? "No." suggests a formal numbering system.
• "first ESA Astronaut" should probably have a name!
• "Germany funded"/"Japan funded" should be, eg, "German funded mission" or "Mission funded by Germany".
• Link "abort to orbit"
• Watch out for abbreviations: You mix "HST" and "Hubble Space Telescope", etc.
• Mir is sometimes italicised, sometimes not
• Contingency missions - did 320 support 120? It seems out of synch with the others.

And the big one - Buran seems strange here and feels very much an afterthought. I would strongly suggest creating a separate list of Buran flights and refocusing this one on the US program - probably retitling it Space Shuttle in the process. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 Doing... thank you for your feedback! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have addressed all of the comments above, except for the last one. Splitting is possible, even if it's just a SIZESPLIT, however; I'm going to look more into it rather than just spitting right now. I think it would be a very good idea though. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 00:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: I have split the articles, citing WP:SIZESPLIT. Please see List of Buran spaceplane missions for the second part of the article. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good :-). Let me know when you run it to FLC. The "cancelled" section could potentially be expanded a bit, but it's hard to do that without replicating the other article (and then we have the Buran problem again...) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you :) I will definitely let you know when I run it through FLC, I'm hoping to do that soon.

I agree, the "canceled" section needs some expansion. And some sources too... I will sit down and do that soon. Thank you much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: I've added sources to the "canceled" section. Does that work? ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 17:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That Buran split was long overdue, so thanks for doing it. I've renamed the new page to drop the "spaceplane" since we don't usually use that level of precision in other similar titles. With regards the Shuttle article there are a couple of issues I noticed. I think it could use some clarification regarding launch dates - possibly adding times and specifying which timezone the dates are given in. For consistency (both between launches and with other articles), and in keeping with the preferred styles of WP:SPACEFLIGHT, I would suggest going with UTC first but also including the local EST/EDT times. I also feel that the summary section does not make it sufficiently clear to a casual reader that Enterprise never flew in space, and its flight times are for atmospheric missions only. Finally I would suggest doing away with the rendezvous column in the main table - in the early days of the programme such missions were rare so there are a lot of empty rows, and for missions where rendezvous did occur it is usually if not always mentioned prominently in the notes column. --W. D. Graham 18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@WDGraham: Thank you for your kind words. You're probably right, the "spaceplane" part was a little specific. I was attempting to avoid any controversy in that split/move (same with the creation of the redirect). Thank you for fixing that.

Thank you for the feedback. I will address it here this evening, and will let you know when it's complete so you can review. Thank you much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done @WDGraham: Sorry about the delay, UTC was kicking my butt. I wound up writing a script to convert the times, and everything should be set now. I also clarified the introduction, including information about Enterprise. If you'd like, you are more than welcome to review my work and provide further comments. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: @WDGraham: I have nominated the list for FLC. Thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 21:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

source problem

footnote NO. 14, Godwin, p. 32, what's this "Godwin" stand for?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jarodalien: From the bibliography, "Goodwin, Robert (2001). Space Shuttle – STS Flights 1-5 – The NASA Mission Reports. Canada: Apogee Books. ISBN 1-896522-69-6." Appears to be a typo. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029004712/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20160314160635/http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/ to http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I have checked this change ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say something · What I've done} 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information

In the Test flights section, the image of Enterprise states the date of image as "26 September 1977". However, the chart in that same section does not have any flights listed in the "Launch date" column for that date. Is the chart wrong or the date listed on the file image? Mitchumch (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are orbiters now?

Should the Lead and body of article include where the Enterprise and the surviving three orbiters are on display? The information can be copied from the articles about the individual vehicles. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

‘Eliminating crew’

Don’t want to sacrifice accuracy and official language for the sake of sensitivity, but this does seem a very brutal and dehumanising way to describe what happened. Could we replace it with ‘leading to deaths of entire crew’ or similar? Harsimaja (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Colors in Launch Graphics

The sections "Launches" and "Timelines of missions" at the end of the article use two completely different color schemes for identifying the individual orbiters. The sections are adjacent to each other, so this difference is very noticeable. I propose we standardize these color palettes. I personally like the colors used in the Shuttle timeline template much better, and the Launches bar chart actually used that color scheme previously. However the colors were updated for color blind readability, so I could live with that. Either way, I think we need to update the colors used in the Launches section, or update the "Template:Shuttle timeline" colors. Comments? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

BuckeyeSmithie I support your idea. I don't care which colors are used, but color blind readability should be prioritized. Mitchumch (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I did some research to find a colorblind-friendly color palette that also looked good against a white background. Several good color palettes had at least one color that was too light to show up well against white. I ended up going with Paul Tol's "Bright" color scheme. Edited the Launches section on this page, as well as the {{Shuttle timeline}} template. I'm not sure it's perfect, but I think it's better than what we had before, since the two visualizations are now consistent. BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

BuckeyeSmithie Looks fine to me. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)