Template talk:Space Shuttles

Differences
Just wondering, can anyone make the template so that it differentiates the shuttles between American and Soviet/Russian ones? I don't know much about designing templates... --Andylkl 15:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Nevermind about that, I did it myself... =) --Andylkl 08:58, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Space Shuttles??
Technically the name "Space Shuttle" solely applies to the Space Shuttle Program (STS) of the USA. Including the Buran Project leads to the question what else may qualify as a "Space Shuttle". Changing the template to "Space Planes" may be appropiate. This would lead to admitting other craft into this template. I created a proposal template (shown on the right) that includes craft that may quallify as "Space Planes". Unfortunatly it's quite difficult to draw a line between a rocket or a space craft and a space plane. What do you think? Thehardwareman 01:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to modify the status quo. This is intended to refer to STS and its direct Russian analogue, and I believe most people lump them together out of sheer similarity. As you have shown, the Space Planes template could be unwieldy. Also, your Space Planes template should include the MiG-105. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 02:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am aware that the template is incomplete. There are probably space planes i have missed, and also the project status of the ones listed are incomplete. But the incompetness of the template is not the point at the moment. The point is that if the Buran qualifies as a "Space Shuttle" then there are probably other ships that would qualify. (thanks anyway for pointing me to the MiG-105, i added it to the template) [[Image:user.gif]] Thehardwareman T C E 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your proposal really has too much info, and needs to be slimmed down or it will dominate some of the pages. The manu names could go; they are all on the respective linked articles anyway. You'll want to fix the typo too. Good work though. Guinnog 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove Explorer
The inclusion of Pathfinder is somewhat questionable, but it at least tolerable because it was built by NASA for test purposes. The inclusion of Explorer is completely without merit in my opinion as it was built as a replica for tourist purposes. I doubt that if there were a list of Saturn V rockets that we would list the replica in Huntsville. If we're going to include replica shuttles in this list, then we'd better start expanding it. I believe Space Center Houston has one called Adventure. Here's one in California. And don't even start talking about all the stuff at JSC building 9. All this is to say that I would like to see Explorer removed from this list. Cjosefy 17:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the one in Huntsville isn' t a replica. Neutral on removing Explorer. --Guinnog 18:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. But the one I'm talking about is this one. From Saturn V article --> The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville also has on display an erect full scale model of the Saturn V. Cjosefy 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that Saturn V at Huntsville is an unused production unit. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is a difference between the replica model in Hunstville and the dynamic test vehicle. Cjosefy 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- GW_Simulations |User Page 12:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favor of keeping Explorer off the template. It's a tourist-centric replica, and was designed for that purpose, vs. Pathfinder, which was originally built as a test article and then refurbished into a tourist attraction.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Convert to horizontal, and move to the bottom of the page?
I'd like to see this template converted to a horizontal layout, and moved to the bottom of the pages it's on. As it stands, it clutters up the pages a bit, and it's normally pushed down from the top-right of the page by an image/infobox relating to the page in hand. Any objections/comments? Mike Peel 14:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. Cjosefy 21:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How's that? Mike Peel 21:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

numerical order?
Why Enterprise (OV-101) is prior to Pathfinder (OV-098) and why Columbia (OV-102) is prior to Challenger (OV-099)? Or I missed anything? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's because Challenger was intended to be a test article (STA-099), and not an operational shuttle, but it was later determined that making Challenger out of that body frame was cheaper than refitting Enterprise into a spaceworthy shuttle. Columbia still would have been the first to fly, but it would then have been Enterprise after that.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Other nations space planes
Removed the follow from the template as they are paper projects, not flight articles. Can re-add once they develop further. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * group1 = Others
 * list1 =
 * ''Hermes (spacecraft)
 * Indian Space Shuttle Programme
 * Project 921-3

How about Pathfinder and Enterprise? I would have thought they would qualify the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.34.86 (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, but I was speaking about programs in general. None of those other space shuttle programs have ever produced a spaceflight article of any kind as far as I'm aware, which really should be the key for inclusion here. All have produced scale models: two for Hermes which appear to just be visual mockups, and at least one engineering model for ISRO (which they say will be launched, but this seems rather improbable). The Chinese program reportedly has performed a suborbital test on a delta-wing vehicle, but I've not heard of anything to substantiate this claim and find it much more likely this was an aerodynamics drop-test from its carrier aircraft, much like the ones performed by Space Shuttle Enterprise. The Chinese are much more likely to field such a vehicle given their space ambitions, but any such orbital vehicle is likely still many years away. Until that time, and especially until Wiki articles are produced on individual vehicles, I argue that this template should focus on actual spaceflight articles and related "gateway" test vehicles. (Sorry for the ramble.) — Huntster (t @ c) 13:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note the spaceplanes template, which more appropriately covers these various test projects by a variety of nations. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)