Talk:STS-114: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Question for all STS mission pages |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6. Tag: |
||
| (41 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
|||
<B>SUCCESS!</B> |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|||
''Godspeed Discovery'' |
|||
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=Mid}} |
|||
: And let's keep everything crossed for a safe return nine hours or so from now [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] 22:43, 7 August 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 }} |
|||
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) |
|||
== 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) |
|||
What do you mean by 'building' the thing? Do you mean how much the Shuttle cost to build, or how much the mission costed to launch? -[[User:RPharazon|RPharazon]] |
|||
== September 17, 2009 == |
== September 17, 2009 == |
||
That's when they'll start flying again. |
That's when they'll start flying again. |
||
* Very funny. Stop [[Special:Contributions/68.91.113.252|vandalizing]] pages. —[[User: |
* 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!!!!!!! |
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 == |
== delay's effect on atlantis == |
||
| Line 48: | 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. |
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 == |
||
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! – [[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 == |
|||
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) |
|||
== Time format in the mission timeline == |
|||
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) |
|||
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) |
|||
: In fact Zulu (miltary) time is GMT (not, 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 briefings so it would seem more natural to leave it that way. Also all other times in this article are quoted as either EDT (local at the launch site) or EDT and UTC. Perhaps that's desirable in the timeline, but it still doesn't answer my question about the time __format__. Is there not a Wikipedia policy? I couldn't find one/ |
|||
== Window cover == |
|||
In the post MMT briefing the Newscientist reporter asked about a billowing window cover. |
|||
Does anyone know what it is and what's up with it? [[User:Richard Taylor|Richard Taylor]] 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Clapping === |
|||
At the end of spacewalk 2, one of the EVA crew offered a round of applause to the ground crew at mission control. We heard him clap. Surely in space no-one can hear you clap?? Conspirisory theroists might shout whistleblower at this point! Also on a related point while watching NASA TV which covers the spacewalks liveish there's lots of odd sounds - like bad soundeffects of a building site - which sound like someone hammering a girder and it ringing - any idea what these are?[[User:Richard Taylor|Richard Taylor]] 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I would have thought the air inside the spacesuit, and the suit itself, would carry the sound of the clapping to the mike. The banging and ringing ''could'' be expansion/contraction due to thermal stresses. [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 21:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Blow torch effect== |
|||
I've written a sentence on the worry that leaving a protuding gap filler might disturb laminar flow etc... I've just read on Slashdot [http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/02/0050254&tid=236&tid=160&tid=14] that there is possibly another mechanism by which the gap fillers could cause problems - by acting as a "blow torch" - is this the same effect or a means the press are using to describe the effect of disrupting laminar flow? It wasn't mentioned in the briefings on NASA TV. [[User:Richard Taylor|Richard Taylor]] 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Gap fillers== |
|||
The article sates that the two GFs ahd different purposes. I have read that chattering can cause them to come loose, but not htat chtter supression is the purpose of some of them. |
|||
Best I could find was: |
|||
"Where surface pressure gradients would cause cross flow of boundary layer air within the intertile gaps, tile gap fillers are provided to minimize heating. The tile gap filler materials consist of white AB312 fibers or a black-pigmented AB312 cloth cover containing alumina fibers. These materials are used around the leading edge of the forward fuselage nose cap, windshields and side hatch, wing, trailing edge of elevons, vertical stabilizer, rudder/speed brake, body flap and heat shield of the shuttle's main engines." |
|||
[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 21:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Furthermore "reduce the gap size between tiles, which in turn reduces heat transfer to the shuttle" is misleading compared with the above. [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 21:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
The explainations in the article came from the NASA press conferences (I don't think the transcripts are online?) the two separate reasons for having the gap fillers were explained during one. The materials etc. are covered in more detail in the liked PDF - we could perhaps put more in the article - but then all that 12 page PDF is interesting we've got to extract the really interesting bits. As for if it's fabric coated in ceramic or vice versa again the wording I'd used was from the press conference. - I don't the different wording makes much if any difference. The gap fillers in the two locations were different according to the pdf. It's worth considering noting perhaps that between the tiles there are both shims and gap fillers - the shims being made of different material, the pdf contains a note that it might be a shim not a gap filler protuding. [[User:Richard Taylor|Richard Taylor]] 01:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Yes I read the pdf, and the gap fillers are different, but I was under the impression that the difference was merely thickness. The documentation on the materials shows that chattering is something tha can cause things to come loose. I'll see if I can identify thge press conference details. (A lot of the insulation technology is very clever materials science bodging.) [[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich Farmbrough]] 17:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== On-board reserves == |
|||
The article mentions the weather at the landing site being a determinant of problems. If the landing has to be aborted due to severe weather at Kennedy, how long can they delay de-orbital burn and continue to orbit until the weather down here clears up? [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] 00:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Tony, The Discovery has two days of extra consumables, so if they cannot deorbit tomorrow (ur... today, depending on where you are!) then they can look at Tuesday. Wednesday they have to put down somewhere. Edwards AFB and White Sands are the two standby landing sites. [[User:Fatherroblyons|Father Rob Lyons]] 03:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks, Father Rob [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] 20:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== New approach path == |
|||
I didn t see anything in the article relating to the new approach that Discovery will use (Pacific most of the time, then Nicaragua and Panama). It will not fly over the continental U.S., like (all?) other Shuttle missions before. |
|||
Response: |
|||
Partly this was due to Orbital Mechanics on this trip, but they have noted that if they landed at Edwards, they had a slight ripple in the flight path to avoid cities like LA. [[User:Fatherroblyons|Father Rob Lyons]] 03:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== New planned landing time at 6:22 AM (1022 UTC) == |
|||
I have updated the article to reflect this. --[[User:Pile0nades|pile0nades]]<sup>[[User_talk:Pile0nades|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Pile0nades|contribs]]</sup> 08:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== anyone watching nasa tv == |
|||
What's that guy talking about right now? All that number and letters? |
|||
:Without context, it could be anything. Perhaps he was ordering in a Chinese takeaway for the crew when they land :-) [[User:Tonywalton|Tonywalton]] 11:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Tony, I wasn't watching, I was at work, but if you can give me an idea of what they were talking about, I might be able to tell you. My uess is that it was vectors for landing, but I am not sure.[[User:Fatherroblyons|Father Rob Lyons]] 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Italic Shuttle Names == |
|||
Shuttle names are indeed italicised. It is like a ship in the Navy or in a Sci-Fi or other fictional book. The ship's designation is in regular text, and it's christened name is in italics. Thus, OV-103 ''Discovery'' is the general way you would see the ship named.[[User:Fatherroblyons|Father Rob Lyons]] 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: btw, we also italicise aircraft that have proper names too, such as ''[[Enola Gay]]'' and other spacecraft, such as [[Apollo 11]]'s ''Eagle'' and ''[[Voyager 2]]''. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 23:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Landing video? == |
|||
Anyone recorded it please upload it. [[User:60.234.144.135|60.234.144.135]] 09:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) |
|||
This is live broadcast from CNN (80 mb) http://svinosite.spb.ru/data/space/landing.zip |
|||
== Crew experience == |
|||
Should the experience counts in the crew section include the current mission? (Raised in edit comment by [[User:Ageekgal]]) |
|||
Previous Shuttle missions do this - though there is no explaination as to if the numbers include the current mission or not. I think it's OK as it is with the explaination - and the other missions should be brought into line with this one. (If the number is inclusive or not is not given on the other missions - in fact what the number means at all is often omitted) |
|||
== Crew Experience -- I concur == |
|||
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 like that line of thinking -- bringing the other missions' crew experience totals in line with this one, which makes is clear what the (x) number means. It'd take some work, but I've enjoyed my wiki experience so much (I've only been editing for a week or so) I might start validating the other missions' counts and editing as required. |
|||
== Mission Risks == |
|||
'''To bear in mind:''' The caption for the crew counts notes it indicates the "number of spaceflights completed" -- I'm not positive, but there are probably some (admittedly few?) astronauts who have flown on Shuttle missions who have also been sent to orbit onboard Russia's/Soviet launch vehicles to Mir or the ISS, and those are spaceflights as well. So if anyone begins updates of crew flight counts, that needs to be taken into account, or some astronaut's flight experience will be under-represented. |
|||
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) |
|||
== Question for all STS mission pages == |
|||
* 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 == |
|||
I noticed some/most of the STS mission pages include a nifty formatting element -- {{Infobox Space Shuttle mission ...}} that sets up the layout for the primary mission data (duration, distance travelled, next/previous mission, etc.) I jumped to STS-1 out of curiousity and see that similar data was displayed with hard-coded HTML. Is there any reason precluding updating old STS mission pages to use the Infobox Space Shuttle mission element? If it's just a question of some data missing, then I for one will add the older shuttle flights to my internal list of pages I'd like to edit. |
|||
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? |
|||
Just didn't want to really screw up. |
|||
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. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
September 17, 2009
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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?