Talk:Space Shuttle retirement

That that

In December 2010, as NASA prepared for the STS program ending, an audit by the OIG found information technology was sold or prepared for sale that still contained sensitive information.[16] The OIG recommended NASA be more careful in the future.[16]

Is that that in the right place? I would have said: In December 2010, as NASA prepared for the STS program ending, an audit by the OIG found that information technology already sold or prepared for sale still contained sensitive information.[16] The OIG recommended NASA be more careful in the future.[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the shuttles?

This is a proposed section for this article:

The current location of the three space worthy shuttles and the prototype shuttle, Enterprise.

	Shuttle Name	Shuttle Designation	Current Location	Final Retirement Destination
	Enterprise	OV-101	Udvar-Hazy Center, Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Chantilly, Virginia	Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, New York, New York
	Discovery	OV-103	Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida	Udvar-Hazy Center, Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, Chantilly, Virginia
	Atlantis	OV-104	Kennedy Space Center Orbiter Processing Facility, Merritt Island, Florida	Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
	Endeavour	OV-105	Kennedy Space Center, Pad 39A, Merritt Island, Florida	California Science Center, Los Angeles, California.

user:mnw2000 00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Support it's been added to the article. Good summary. A lot of people will be looking for this information so a table makes good sense here.

Skylon

The Skylon section has been removed from the article. While an interesting proposal that has been brought up in news reports on the shuttle's retirement, including it here gives the proposal a bit of undue weight that is not supported by the references.. There is no indication that NASA is considering Skylon as a successor to STS. --RadioFan (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad. You are correct. Until NASA starts talking about it in that context, we need to hold off inserting it as a replacement. I will put the link to the Skylon article in See also though. --  Novus  Orator  02:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Skylon doesn't belong in a see also section either. See also on the space shuttle article, sure, but this is about the STS retirement which the Skylon has nothing to with.--RadioFan (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Explanation severely needed eg on reason for retirement

This article doesn't at all cover the reasons for or what led up to the retirement, and these missing facts are vital. The name "Bush" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. The other article "Space Shuttle program" has about one single phrase stating the reason ("... in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued in the Vision for Space Exploration"). Shouldn't this be expanded upon in-depth in the present article? --Wykypydya (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside any partisan implications, I have to agree that this section is underwritten. It's missing BASIC facts like what date the retirement was announced. --Michael Bauser (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe retirement reasons were obviously due to cost saving measures, but I would like to see this proven with references and actual dollar comparisons, and should be right away on the first paragraph of this article. I couldn't find this anywhere in the whole wiki.Soyasauce (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I gather that after the Columbia loss in 2003, the accident investigation board report showed that it was risky/unsafe, and that report, or another concluded it would be very expensive to make Shuttle safe - so, in 2004, Bush announced that Shuttle would be retired in 2010 (after completing the ISS assembly). I can dig out sources if needed. - Rod57 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

full body trainer

Is the full body trainer the one that is put into the swimming pool? And is there an article with more information on it? 70.24.247.54 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention of Columbia?

Prior to its destruction it was going to be the first Orbiter to be retired (because it couldn't deliver as much mass to the ISS as the other orbiters).--Craigboy (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

SpaceX May 2012 Flight

This flight was as per their NASA contract a demonstration flight, the final demonstration flight. Although cargo was delivered to the ISS, the primary intent of the mission was to demonstrate manoevering and docking ability with the ISS. The cargo was incidental and not of primary importance. The first flight that NASA specifically contracted SpaceX to deliver supplies was the October flight. This is usually called SpaceX CRS-1. CRS standing for Commercial Resupply Services. 1 meaning the first. To avoid confusion with the official first resupply mission please do not re-revert the change to call the final demo mission the first resupply mission, craigboy. --71.38.174.85 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The first demonstration flight of Dragon was SpaceX Cots Demo Flight 1. SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 2 was the first time Dragon delivered cargo to the ISS, this was actual cargo manifested by NASA it was not a dead weight simulate. So there is nothing incorrect with calling it the first resupply mission. SpaceX CRS-1 was the first operational re-supply mission. SpX COTS 2 is much more significant than SpX CRS-1 because it proved that SpaceX now had the capability to deliver cargo to the ISS. SpX CRS-1 is essentially a re-flight of SpX COTS 2 but with less requirements (no demo maneuvers and retreats). Because the sentences "The final Dragon demonstration mission occurred in May 2012" and "The first Dragon resupply mission occurred in May 2012" are both true, I prefer the latter because it gives much more information and a better idea on the progress of the program.--Craigboy (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wring with calling it the first resupply mission? Wrongo. The resupply missions refer to missions that take place under Nasa's commercial resupply contract. The C2+ mission was not under the resupply contract but under the COTS contract. So referring to the mission in the way you have implies the mission was undertaken as part of the CRS contract, which is wrong. I will continue to revert your incorrect and misleading edits. --71.38.172.8 (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you've created your own definition. COTS Demo Flight 2 was a demonstration mission but it was also used to resupply the International Space Station with food, crew provisions and experiment hardware. Just because it wasn't an operational resupply mission doesn't mean it's not one at all. In fact one of the objectives of COTS Demo Flight 2 was to demonstrate the ability to deliver cargo to the ISS (see page 3). So how is it misleading to call it a resupply mission? Please remember civility.--Craigboy (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

America: Learn your symbols

mt is millitonne in metric. A stupid, irrational measure.

I presume it is intended to mean metric tonne. If you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.236.14 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessarily true. As a person from the Netherlands, I can understand your frustration. It is important to note, however, that mT can be used to indicate the measure of metric tonnes. It is actually used far more often than just using T, because T can mean eiter a metric tonne, or a short tonne the US could use. That why mT is often used. By the way, mt could also be short for millitesla, and so on. It just depends on the context that you are reading the abbreviation in. Levi van Leeuwen (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Space Shuttle retirement

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

Reference named "space.com":

• From Orion (spacecraft): Wall, Mike (May 24, 2011). "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration". Space.com. Retrieved May 24, 2011.
• From STS-61-A: [1]

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

WHY retired ?

In a nutshell i should be able to read this lead and understand without any confusion why they stopped the shuttles. I mean without using too much of my brain I should be able to get this info instantly. Unfortunately I cannot do that, making this a very poor article. --169.1.126.180 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd say/add something like : "After the Columbia loss in 2003, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report showed that STS was risky/unsafe, and that report, or another, concluded it would be very expensive to make Shuttle safe - so, in 2004, President G.W.Bush announced (as part of VSE?) that Shuttle would be retired in 2010 (after completing the ISS assembly)." I can dig out sources if needed. - Rod57 (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of inserting that (for now) in the appropriate place in the introduction. - Rod57 (talk)

Updating this Article:

Some kind soul should go through the entire Article and update it to reflect changes that have taken place in the last two years or so. I might do it when I have sufficient time on hand. Of special note is the parts where future tense has been used and yet the events have already taken place even at the time of the last update. Thanks.Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 09:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Sadly I don't have the knowledge to update this article correctly, but I feel like it's missing a lot of information... For example, it says the ISS is funded through 2020, so I'm assuming the funding has been extended, since the SpaceX rockets are still making regular trips up there. Might also be good to talk about the Virgin Galactic ship, since it's of a somewhat similar style to the shuttle. Rakkfalen (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

On Starship and SS2

I don't see the point of having Starship and SpaceShipTwo on the successors section, these are private endeavours and were not even in development at the time of the Space Shuttle retirement. I suggest that we remove those two.--BugWarp (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Paragraph seems out of place in Former planned Space Shuttle successors

In the Former planned Space Shuttle successors section is this out of context paragraph that could be deleted IMO to improve the section:

"For comparison to an earlier retirement, when the Saturn IB was last flown in 1975 for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the Shuttle development program was already well underway. However, the Shuttle did not fly until 1981, which left a six-year gap in U.S. human spaceflight. Because of this and other reasons, in particular, higher than expected Solar activity that caused Skylab's orbit to decay faster than hoped, the U.S. space station Skylab burned up in the atmosphere."

Does it need to go somewhere else. or any objections if I just delete it ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)