The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Shuttle-Centaur booster (test article pictured) was once intended to send a space probe to Jupiter?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk pageorWikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promotedbyYoninah (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1:... that the Shuttle-Centaur booster (test article on display at the Glenn Research Center pictured) was once intended to send a space probe to Jupiter? Source: [2]
Overall: Although the page was technically created October 1, the article was moved into mainspace on October 18. No need for an alt hook IMO; this one is already quite interesting. Good work on the article. The only minor reservation I initially had was I wasn't familiar with the reliability of the Spaceflight Insider source, but after looking through the website's background, I think it has sufficient editorial oversight that this isn't a problem. Good to go. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added a second, NASA, source. Hawkeye7(discuss) 23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I came by to promote this, but where does the article or source say that this particular shuttle was once intended to send a space probe to Jupiter? Or do all Shuttle-Centaurs fit into this same category? Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Originally scheduled to fly in 1986, the Centaur-G's use on board the space shuttle was cancelled after the Challenger accident that year. At the time of the tragedy, two Centaur-G Prime stages were in preparation to launch with NASA's Ulysses and Galileo planetary spacecraft to study the Sun and Jupiter, respectively." (The Ulysses probe to the Sun would have gone by way of the Jupiter.) "One of the Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997." "The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article." [3]
I have created an ALT1, with the wording slightly altered. Hawkeye7(discuss) 00:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Restoring tick per Mz7's review. Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"To enable its installation a Shuttle's payload bay, the diameter of the Centaur's liquid hydrogen tank was increased" - No matter how many times I read this, it just doesn't seem right. Not sure if it's a grammar error or a comprehension error on my end.
Y Deleted this sentence. Don't think it needs to be in the lead. (Personally, I don't look at the lead much, and rarely pay much attention to it.)
Probably a touch on the short side for the lead. None of the congressional stuff that is mentioned quite a bit in the article never appears in the lead, for instance.
It is amazing how much effort you put in to write this excellent article and to incorporate all the small details and contextual information. All of this, just for an upperstage. I really enjoyed reading that article. Thanks a lot! --2.42.109.83 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Under Stofan, the Lewis Research Center budget went from $133 million (equivalent to $385 million in 2019) to $188 million (equivalent to $387 million in 2019) in 1985. " something must be wrong when the input increases 55 million and the output increases 2 million. 84.215.194.30 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the way it was. In the wake of the 1979 oil crisis there was double-digit inflation in the United States for several years. Hawkeye7(discuss) 05:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How should refueling be done on the launch pad? Did the launch towers on launch pads 39A and 39B have a corresponding arm? Would the gates of the space shuttle's cargo bay have to be opened to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DF:1F22:7423:F197:53D:BA92:5B1E (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the page was technically created October 1, the article was moved into mainspace on October 18. No need for an alt hook IMO; this one is already quite interesting. Good work on the article. The only minor reservation I initially had was I wasn't familiar with the reliability of the Spaceflight Insider source, but after looking through the website's background, I think it has sufficient editorial oversight that this isn't a problem. Good to go. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I've added a second, NASA, source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I came by to promote this, but where does the article or source say that this particular shuttle 
Y Deleted this sentence. Don't think it needs to be in the lead. (Personally, I don't look at the lead much, and rarely pay much attention to it.)
