Talk:Space Shuttle Pathfinder

Burning questions

1. I can see it's shorter. How much shorter?
2. Why is this thing smaller than the flight models? (Why are OMS engines smaller?)
3. What were the 6 missions mentioned in the infobox?

-- ke4roh (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why there are 6 missions listed in the info box. Enterprise could arguably include non-space missions but it is not at all clear why this vehicle mockup would.--RadioFan (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Move? (2012)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Pathfinder (simulator) → Space Shuttle Pathfinder –

• match other US Space Shuttle test shuttle articles, Space Shuttle Enterprise, Space Shuttle Explorer, Space Shuttle Columbia 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• But it isn't a real working Space Shuttle. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support neither are Explorer or Enterprise but their articles are rightly named with Space Shuttle. All are full scale, based on blueprints of the flight worthy orbiters, and both Enterprise and Pathfinder served as test articles providing direct contribution to the Space Shuttle Program.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I am original nom. Space Shuttle Explorer is just a mockup, and not a working shuttle, this is a structural test article, so is more "real" than Explorer. Enterprise was never refit for space, so isn't space capable either. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as I am the nominator. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for clarity and "least surprise". - Dravecky (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

SRB fact disputed

As the designer of ASRB Handling Rings and the O-Ring Groove Protector, I can definitively state the above sentence is incorrect. The Advanced Solid Rocket Booster was designed using a 3 segment rocket motor with a diameter of 150", held together with 150X 1.25" diameter bolts per field joint. I work across the street from the Pathfinder, and confirmed on 5/26/2012, that the boosters on display at the Space and Rocket Center are 4 segment motor cases with a diameter of 146.146", held together with tang and clevis pinned field joints. To my knowledge the one ASRB motor case made, developed a large circumferential crack upon finishing heat treatment, just prior to program termination. - 69.73.61.43 (talk) 06:01, 01 June 2012 (UTC)

• I relocated this commentary and original research about the actual boosters mounted with Pathfinder from the article to the talk page. As it appears this comment was made in good faith and the source cited for the description in the article is far from technical in nature, this claim bears further and rapid investigation and, if true, proper sourcing and a solid edit to this description. - Dravecky (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

How did this thing get around?

How did Pathfinder get to Japan and back? Were there other key transport moments? -- ke4roh (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Italicize the name?

I'm tending to think that the name of this and other mock-ups made of "steel and wood" shouldn't be italicized. They are models of a sort, and not actual spacecrafts or even models of actual named spacecraft. Thoughts? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Space at the beginning of the paragraph

There appears to be a bunch of space at the top of the article. It looks like a bunch of line breaks but I don't see anything in Visual Editor nor the Source editor. Does anyone know what is causing this? BaconErie (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)