Talk:Space Shuttle#Clarifying appropriate date format for this page

Greetings, I am from Chinese wiki. When editing the Chinese pages related to space shuttles, I find the pages quite unorganized, and have some questions that could be better answered by the English community.

1. What is the relationship between Space Shuttle program and Space Transportation System?
2. Did the STS become the space shuttle program, or are they separate
3. Can they be treated as the same thing or put under one page (there was a Chinese page about STS that was not a Chinese version of the Space Transportation System, it only contained information about the space shuttle, and I merged it into the Chinese Space Shuttle program page, a Chinese version of the STS page never existed)
4. When referring to names like Atlantis and OV-104, do they refer to a space shuttle or a space shuttle orbiter?
5. When linking from other pages, when do you link to space shuttle and when to space shuttle orbiter?
6. Is it correct to say that
7. a space shuttle is a spacecraft system, not a spacecraft nor a spaceplane
8. a space shuttle orbiter is a spacecraft, spaceplane, and part of a space shuttle

Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:1.1 STS (the wiki page) refers to the early development and exploration efforts of space systems to succeed Apollo. These efforts led to the Space Shuttle program, in which STS refers to the full Shuttle stack (RSRB + Orbiter + ET + SSMEs) and Shuttle missions (e.g. STS-1).

:1.2 They are different things.

:2 OV-x can refer to more than just Orbiters as some of the test articles followed a similar naming scheme with varying prefixes. See Space Transportation System by HAER (https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/tx1106/). Names refer only to the actual Orbiters.

:3. Link to Space Shuttle when referencing the shuttle stack and link to orbiter when discussing the orbiter.

:4. Yes, technically although plenty of people use "space shuttle" to refer to both. RebirthNA (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply. Just to confirm, STS (system) in this program means the entire spacecraft system, or the missions(STS-x), correct? And I noticed that the second sentence says "Its official program name was Space Transportation System (STS)......", does this mean the official program name changed and remained as "Space Shuttle program" or is it past tense because the Space Shuttle program has ended? I am asking this because in Chinese we don't have tenses, and our article gives the impression that "STS" was and had always been the "official program name". Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:::STS previously referred to the initial development exploration which lead to the Space Shuttle program. Down selection to the Space Shuttle concept we known today (referred to as Case 404, Thrust Assisted Orbiter Shuttle in early NASA documents), happened in the early 1970s but President Nixon formally announced that the program develop a "space shuttle" in 1972 [https://www.nasa.gov/history/president-nixons-1972-announcement-on-the-space-shuttle/].

:::Thus after 1972, you can think of STS as no longer referring to the initial development program, but instead as the Orbiter + RSRB + ET + SSME combination (aka the Shuttle stack). Said program is now called the Space Shuttle Program.

:::In my prior reply I used past tense because the program is over. RebirthNA (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

::::Thank you for the clarification, some information is indeed lost in translation in the Chinese article, I will adjusting them when I have time. Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

After seeing a similar discussion over at Talk:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, I think there are too many recordings/GIFs used in the launch section. My suggesstion is replacing them with a GIF or still image that shows the over Space Shuttle leaving the launch pad (rather than zoomed in video of the SRBs/SSMEs) and a weak keep of either the SRB separation or ET separation (although I don't think either adds to the article). What are other editors' thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:Doesn't seem like a problem, and an interesting historical and encyclopedic record of the individual shuttles. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:I see the concern. To make it explicit: the page appears 'busy' and the animations distract from the text. Note also these aren't 'zoomed in' views of events during ascent; rather they are close-up views taken by on-board cameras. Wider views of these events are difficult or impossible to obtain. My concern is that these animations and the associated text are in the section that describes 'Launch' when they would be more accurately described as events during 'Ascent.' Perhaps that's pedantic, but there is a meaningful distinction. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

::Maybe in a separate gallery near the bottom? They seem a good element of the page, and a gallery may adequately address the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:::My concern with galleries in articles is that they seem to end up as a repository for photos that don't belong elsewhere in an article, and they become disorganized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

::{{u|Sdsds}} Apologies if my wording was unclear; I understand these photos are not "zoomed in" on a technical sense; the point I was trying to make is that I thing the photos should show a wider field of what's going on (probably impossible for the the SRB and ET separation), but I think a picture/recording of of the entire Space Shuttle stack launching would be more representative of the vehicle launching rather than one focusing on the nozzles at start up.

::It's my personal opinion, but I think that moving GIFs are distracting for an encyclopedia article. I think a photo of the vehicle launching (and possible the recording of the engines starting up) is sufficient for that section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:::No worries, your point was clear and I was only commenting on the difficulty in getting better images or videos of the separation events. Still, some might be out there and worth searching for. By the end of the Shuttle program the range had some spectacular cameras on the ground. Is there any way to make the videos be "click to play" rather than automatically playing? If so that might be a compromise most editors could live with. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:::This YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CirL1S6EnmY&t=579s shows imagery of booster sep from the ground (at 9:39 in the video). Work of NASA; public domain. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What are the sources on the USAF involvement in the Space Shuttle design process, specifically about its crossrange and payload capacity? While the reference in the article mentions on page 196 that "the space agency agreed to the following design criteria" (which does not however imply they were externally imposed by USAF), part of the CAIB report debunks the crossrange myth: https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1282040/m1/225/ So what is the situation there? Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

: The US Air Force's Range Safety organization probably. The Eastern Range and Western Range belonged the Air Force (now Space Space). -Fnlayson (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)