Talk:Space Shuttle design process

This material from breaking up the main Space Shuttle program article.

This material is heavily POV and judgemental. I'm working to revise it.

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:

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)[reply]

Other changes

Made multiple changes to improve readability (see Elements of Style) and factual accuracy. Joema 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]