Talk:STS-114: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:42, 10 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the STS-114 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

September 17, 2009

That's when they'll start flying again.

Very funny. Stop vandalizing pages. —Cleared as filed. 19:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism, this is THE TRUTH!!!!!!!

delay's effect on atlantis

i don't understand this part, isn't having more time to get atlantis ready a *good* thing? I guess I don't understand the arguments listed there in the article, or it's not clear.

Wake up calls

Is the wake up call info really significant enough to this mission to list it, or is it a potential candidate for a new wiki page about NASA's tradition of crew wakeup calls (one brief, recent source), and that wiki page including data on each mission's wake up calls ... assuming NASA has published that info for pre-STS114 missions; offhand I'm only aware of them publishing the data concisely for STS-114 (Source). Addendum -- looks like digging on NASA.gov may turn up data for other flights -- here's the data for STS-107 (Source) It's useful information, but seems a little out of place put directly on the mission page, imho. -- Ageekgal

Mission Risks

I've removed the Mission Risks section. It was inaccurate, speculative, poorly worded and written, and did not exhibit a neutral POV. I couldn't find any substantive content in the entire section worth salvaging. Please discuss it here if you feel the section should be reinstated. --Dan East 18:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Evil Monkey - thanks for fixing this page. I'm not sure what happened, but it must have been something with the Mediawiki software. I edited only this section to add my sig, and when I hit Save page it took me right back to the edit screen, like nothing happened. I had to hit Save page a few times, and finally it saved and showed me just this section with my sig appended (which appeared correct, because I only edited this section in the first place). Weird. --Dan East 23:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Andy Thomas got publically upset

This was the mission where Andy Thomas got very upset about the NASA bosses publically on television. He was certainly reprimanded, and may not be given a chance to fly again. Does anyone know about this or has this all be quietened down?

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Talk header}}
-<B>SUCCESS!</B>
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
-''Godspeed Discovery''
+{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=Mid}}
+}}
-This will likely become a popular page in the next 48 hours.  Let's try to be polite to one another, clear, complete, and accurate.  And let's be careful out there... :-)<br>--[[User:Baylink|Baylink]] 00:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
+{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = Talk:STS-114/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}
-== Launch and landing times ==
-[http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-114/mission-sts-114.html NASA Mission Brief] notes landing sked for KSC.<br>--[[User:Baylink|Baylink]] 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-== Cost? ==
-Anyone know the cost of building ''STS-114''? If so, please leave a message on my [[User talk:Thorpe|talk]] page. [[User:Thorpe|• Thorpe •]] 18:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 == September 17, 2009  ==
 That's when they'll start flying again.
-* Very funny.  Stop [[Special:Contributions/68.91.113.252|vandalizing]] pages. —[[User:Charles O'Rourke|Charles O'Rourke]] 19:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
+* Very funny.  Stop [[Special:Contributions/68.91.113.252|vandalizing]] pages. —[[User:Cleared as filed|Cleared as filed.]] 19:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 This isn't vandalism, this is THE TRUTH!!!!!!!
-== Next launch attempt ==
-According to the press conference this afternoon, the most optimistic date for a second attempt would be Saturday.  No date has been set, tentative or otherwise.  Reference for Saturday date: http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html - [[User:Cafemusique|Cafemusique]] 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
-'''Quote from that link''' (in case external page is edited):
-:NASA managers continue to analyze the issue with the Engine Cut-Off sensor on Space Shuttle Discovery's External Tank. The sensor protects an orbiter's main engines by triggering them to shut down in the event fuel runs unexpectedly low. For the moment, no new launch date for Discovery has been set. During the briefing, Space Shuttle Program Deputy Manager Wayne Hale said the most optimistic possibility for the next launch attempt could be as early as this Saturday, July 16. Additional information will be posted as it becomes available. (posted at 00;21 UTC)
-Quick update, earliest launch date now pushed back to Sunday.--[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
-From [http://nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Space-Shuttle.html?hp&ex=1121400000&en=97212ab43e8b2b12&ei=5094&partner=homepage NY Times]
-:CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- NASA said Thursday that it will not make another attempt to launch space shuttle Discovery until at least Sunday -- and even that is a ''really optimistic good-luck scenario.''
-:Deputy shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said the space agency still probably faces several days of troubleshooting to figure out what caused the faulty fuel-gauge reading that forced the cancellation of Wednesday's launch attempt.
-:The only way the shuttle would be able to fly on Sunday is ''if we go in and wiggle some wires and find a loose connection,'' said Hale, who conceded that was unlikely.
-== spaceflights each crew member completed ==
-Since the current mission has not been completed these numbers appear to be off by one. Perhaps it would be better to say
-: spaceflights each crew member completed prior to this mission
-and decrement each of the numbers. [[User:Pretzelpaws|Pretzelpaws]] 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-: I was thinking the exact same thing.  --[[User:DNordquist|DNordquist]] 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 == delay's effect on atlantis ==
@@ Line 45: / Line 16: @@
 i don't understand this part, isn't having more time to get atlantis ready a *good* thing?  I guess I don't understand the arguments listed there in the article, or it's not clear.
-== Mass ==
+== Wake up calls ==
-Not 0 surely... [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 15:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-== Update ==
-Can someone kindly update [[List of human spaceflights, 2000-present]] [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 15:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-== wikinews link needs updating ==
-the link to the wikinews article about "on indefinite hold" needs to be changed or removed.--[[User:Mitrebox|mitrebox]] 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-+Done I pinned one to the top (with a br tag underit so that the mission infobox still floated left) and one on the 26th. I left the previous news links on the days they occured --[[User:Mitrebox|mitrebox]] 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-:[[User:Tomf688|'''Tomf688''']]: nice work on combining the wikinews links, it looks ''much'' better like this! &ndash; [[User:QuantumEleven|QuantumEleven ]] | [[User_talk:QuantumEleven|(talk)]] 17:30, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-::Thank [[User:Uncle G]] for coming up with that template; makes combining wikinews links much more attractive indeed. :) --<font size="2" face="garamond" color="#3979BF">[[user:tomf688|tomf688]]</font><sup><[[User talk:Tomf688|TALK]]></sup> 19:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
-== Watch reverts on busy pages ==
-If you have to revert on a page that is an unfolding event, then be sure to check to see if people made edits just before you revert (ie check the history immediately after you revert).  Changlc reverted a couple paragraphs I had written regarding anomalies.
-:I reverted one back due to an added paragraph by an anon user that seemed rather redundant and borderline vandalism, sorry if it accidentally caught some of your stuff.-[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
-:The section in question:
-::''Although the mission launch has been a full success uptil now, the landing of the craft is the far more dangerous and risky part of the mission goals to be accomplished - and this is still to come. The landing procedures will take place in approximately twelve days from now on. Only if the shuttle hits the ground - this way or the other - only then, the mission can be called a success. In the other case an unrivaled disaster.''
-::: No problem!  I've reverted other people's stuff by accident too.  :)  I agree that piece of prose wasn't appropriate (a little too "riscy", if you ask me).  --[[User:Dan East|Dan East]] 00:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
-== Need landing location ==
-There needs to be info on which landing facility the Shuttle will use. Was not able to find info here.  --[[User:Timvasquez|Timvasquez]] 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-:Done. -[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 02:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-== OBSS Imaging ==
-''The damaged tile will be inspected further when the images from the umbilical camera are downloaded on day three. If engineers deem it necessary the area will be imaged and mapped three dimensionally by the OBSS. (2145UTC/5:45pm EDT on July 26, 2005)''
-What does the date/time in this section refer to? The time an announcement was made, or possibly the scheduled time for the inspection (which is in the past now)? --[[User:Dudegalea|DudeGalea]] 08:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
-* It should be the time (of the press conference) during which NASA released the information.
-== Agenzia Spaziale Italiana ==
+Is the wake up call info really significant enough to this mission to list it, or is it a potential candidate for a new wiki page about NASA's tradition of crew wakeup calls ([http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/wakeup_calls.html one brief, recent source]), and that wiki page including data on each mission's wake up calls ... assuming NASA has published that info for pre-STS114 missions; offhand I'm only aware of them publishing the data concisely for STS-114 ([http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/audio/shuttle/sts-114/html/ndxpage1.html Source]). Addendum -- looks like digging on NASA.gov may turn up data for other flights -- here's the data for STS-107 ([http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/audio/shuttle/sts-107/html/ndxpage1.html Source]) It's useful information, but seems a little out of place put directly on the mission page, imho. -- [[User:Ageekgal|Ageekgal]]
-I reverted [[Agenzia Spaziale Italiana]] back to [[Italian Space Agency]], because the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana article redirects to the latter, and because I would expect that the English translation should be used in English articles.  I do not know the specific policy regarding this, so if anyone would enlighten me it could prove useful in the future.  --[[User:Dan East|Dan East]] 13:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
-: The [[Multi-Purpose Logistics Module]] article links to [[Agenzia Spaziale Italiana]] so we may want to determine what official policy is on this for the sake of consistancy. -[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 16:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
-:: I know that links to redirected pages should be changed to link directly to the article.  There are bots doing those types of corrections all the time.  My main question is shouldn't the english translation of an foreign organization be used instead of the actual, foreign name.  For example, the [[Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency]] - we certainly wouldn't want Japanese glyphs in an english document, so we use an english translation.
-:::That's true, however I think it gets a bit complicated when you have an agency like ASI which is typically refered to using the abbreviation of it's name in the foreign language (i.e. [[KGB]], [[GRU]], thank god the [[European Space Agency]] is ESA in both English and French). Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, either one works for me. -[[User:Changlc|Loren]] 22:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
+== Mission Risks ==
-== Time format in the mission timeline ==
+I've removed the Mission Risks section.  It was inaccurate, speculative, poorly worded and written, and did not exhibit a neutral POV.  I couldn't find any substantive content in the entire section worth salvaging.  Please discuss it here if you feel the section should be reinstated.  --[[User:Dan East|Dan East]] 18:52, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
-I propose changing the times in all the "mission timeline" entries to the AM/PM format used elsewhere (so 01:32 PM EDT rather than 13:32 EDT. I'd like to leave it as "01:32" rather than "1:32" to preserve formatting, though. Is there a policy on this? [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] 16:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
+* Evil Monkey - thanks for fixing this page.  I'm not sure what happened, but it must have been something with the Mediawiki software.  I edited only this section to add my sig, and when I hit '''Save page''' it took me right back to the edit screen, like nothing happened.  I had to hit '''Save page''' a few times, and finally it saved and showed me just this section with my sig appended (which appeared correct, because I only edited this section in the first place).  Weird.  --[[User:Dan East|Dan East]] 23:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
+== Andy Thomas got publically upset ==
-NASA as I understand it uses military time to avoid confusion either on the ground or in space. (there is no AM or PM in space) Secondly NASA uses the phrase "ZULU time" instead of EDT or EST (Except in press briefs). This places all of NASAs mission and flight control offices on one time regardless of location (Space, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Californa).  Last I knew zulu time" is EST and does not adjust for daylight savings. --[[User:Mitrebox|mitrebox]] 19:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
+This was the mission where Andy Thomas got very upset about the NASA bosses publically on  television. He was certainly reprimanded, and may not be given a chance to fly again. Does anyone know about this or has this all be quietened down?
-:True - In fact Zulu (miltary) time is GMT (not, in fact, UTC, the difference is around 30 seconds, so that's irrelevant here). See http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/zulutime.html However my question is regarding the timeline in ''this'' article; I'd be happy to convert to UTC in the timeline, but EDT is the local time used in NASA brieifings so it would seem more natural to leave it that way.