Talk:Canadarm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Needs update

• Most of the information in this article seems to come from a NASA reference manual from 1988, and reads like one. The CSA website says there were in fact 5 Canadarms built, and 4 are still in use, since one was lost in challenger.. but the page hadn't been updated since 2001, i.e. before the columbia explosion. I haven't been able to find how many Canadarms there actually are, and how they differ. Presumably one or more were lost on Columbia, but i haven't even been able to find that. Mlm42 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

Why is the Space Transportation System (STS) under the title Space Shuttle, while the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) is not under the title Canadarm? There should be some consistency in naming conventions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.44.35 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Moved

Well the abbreviation definitely needed to go, so much was clear. I also decided that since canadaspace refers to it as canadarm, and NASA also uses canadarm in non-technical documents, as well as the fact that we use the "easy" names for all ISS components and the shuttle, instead of their technical names, it would be best to have this under Canadarm with the rest redirecting here. What also convinced me here, is that we should always have titles and leads of articles as understandable as possible for those who do not yet understand the topic. It was about time this got cleaned up, and some will surely disagree, but he, we can't make everyone happy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

what changed

link has some info on how the arm was "upgraded" throughout it's lifetime for several times. kinda interesting and we might wanna incorporate some of that into the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First fitted

The article states that the arm was first used on STS-2. Was it not present during STS-1, or was it present but not used? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

STS-1 did not have an RMS arm.Andy120290 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Engineering- Who really designed the Canadarm

The Canadarm was not (or at least not entirely) designed by SPAR it was Engineered by a small company called DSMA. SPAR has been taking the credit for years.

Due credit would be greatly appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.48.23 (talk) 17:14, February 18, 2008

I worked for DSMA Atcon (Dilworth, Secord, Marr & Associates) from September 1981 to August 1983. This was after the arm had been designed and built. The STS-2 mission was just after I joined DSMA Atcon and was of great interest to the people there who had been involved.

First some details about DSMA. DSMA was run as two companies in the same building - DSMA Atcon and DSMA International. DSMA International designed and built wind tunnels. DSMA Atcon undertook a range engineering consultancy work. "Atcon" stood for "Advanced Technology consultants". DSMA Atcon had a deep involvement in the CANDU nuclear program, having designed, built and tested the remote control fuelling machines for the original CANDU reactors. It was DSMA Atcon that was involved in the Canadarm program.

I can attest to the following based on conversations I had with the various people who had worked on the project;

1. Lloyd Secord, CEO of DSMA Atcon originally approached NASA looking for work on another project which did not eventuate. Because of the DSMA Atcon experience with remote manipulators the remote arm for the shuttle came up in conversation. NASA was interested in outsourcing the arm but only to a "national" level entity. Lloyd took this back to Canada where a consortium of 4 companies was formed to make the bid.

2 There was a history between DSMA and SPAR as competitors in the nuclear engineering. Because of the "national" requirement the Canadian government had to be involved. Politics and concern that DSMA Atcon was too small lead to a decision that SPAR would have the lead role. The relationship between DSMA and SPAR was somewhat strained because of this. I cannot remember the details about the other two companies.

3. The actual engineering was split between SPAR and DSMA Atcon. I understood SPAR had the project management role and some of the engineering design work. The End effector was designed by DSMA Atcon. The problem of how to grab a spinning satellite had to be resolved. This was ultimately solved by DSMA Atcon designer Tony Zubricki who re-applied the "rabbit snare" concept to the problem. The satellite is designed with a long protruding shaft with a larger head at the end. This shaft is on the central axis about which the satellite is spinning. This is the "rabbit". The arm end effector is a hollow cylinder ("the rabbit hole"). The arm is manouvered to put the shaft into the end effector ("rabbit into the hole"). Part of the end effector is rotated which pulls wires around like the closing of a lens iris ("the wire snare"). The wires form an ever decreasing hole around the shaft finally ensnaring it. The end effector the gently pulls in the satellite and through frictional contact slows the rotation to zero.

4. DSMA Atcon designed a lot of the testing equipment for qualifying the arm. This was a difficult problem as the arm was too light and flexible to operate under full Earth gravity. The solution was to support the arm on air bearings and test it in the horizontal plane normal to the gravitational effect. A large facility with a very smooth floor for the air bearings was constructed and the arm joints tested.

5. After the successful launch of the arm on STS-2 DSMA Atcon was visited by a NASA delegation lead by the two astronauts. There was a presentation of a plaque from NASA to DSMA Atcon and a number of mission patches given to staff. (I was a recipient of one even though I was not part of the original design team).

6. There is a DSMA Atcon brochure which details the Atcon involvement. It shows photographs of the arm testing environment, etc.

I will try to find this memorabilia and scan it in. --ErnestWad (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Which arm was lost on Columbia (if any)?

The article states which arm was lost on challenger.. which was lost on columbia (if any)? ps thanks for moving the article to Canadarm! 143.117.23.141 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote the page "There were five arms built and delivered to KSC. Arm 201, 202, 301, 302, and 303. Arm 302 was lost in the Challenger accident." That is as much as I have been able to find on it. and np. on the pagemove. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Columbia didn't fly with an arm. There seems to be some confusion about the amount of arms that are/were in existence and what happened to all of them as you can read from this discussion http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/printer-friendly.asp?tid=1826&mid= --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no RMS on Columbia. If there were no tasks requiring the arm manifested for the flight, it was removed to save weight. This was the case on STS-103. This was very unfortunate because the RMS would have allowed the crew to view the area where the debris struck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.157.160.13 (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Canadarm1

There is no reason for this to be under "Canadarm". This is a nickname, not an official name. Just as we don't use acronyms (articles are under their full name), we shouldn't use nicknames either. Therefore, I'm moving this article to Remote Manipulator System Lostchicken 02:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. The names "Canadarm" (shuttle) and "Canadarm2" (station) are used by NASA[1].

That is a great link. In fact, if you go to http://search.nasa.gov/search/, and search SRMS, the article on the space shuttle's robotic arm calls it the mighty canadarm or something like that. Perhaps, a quick mention that the technical term for the Canadarm is SRMS would help. But on the other hand, that name is just a descriptive noun, so it is really useless as a name.

• While it's true the official name by the maker is "Shuttle Remote Manipulator System", it's normal in wiki to use the commonly understood term.
• The purpose of wiki is to be *helpful* to people looking up information. It's not designed to help people who seem to already know everything already. --rob 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles should be referenced by the official name. Canadarm redirects to Remote Manipulator System, so it is no harder to find than it was when the article resided under that name. Canadarm2 properly redirects to Mobile Servicing System, so it is consistent as well. My main gripe about moving articles is that the history is lost. There should be a formal "rename" command to change the name of an article while preserving the history. This article was moved months ago, so it isn't even an issue at this time. --Dan East 01:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Why is it that whenever Americans feel their pride is being stepped on, they must intervene going beyond convention? Same thing with Aluminium/Aluminum. Aluminium is correct, yet the Americans feel that they should have their way, titling the article Aluminum. Some random idiot mentions that, as Aluminum is more used than Aluminium, not using the American spelling would not be NPOV. Now c'mon you people! Make up your minds!--AtomicCactus 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why were you talking about Aluminium? This is a talk page about Canadarm.

• • You forgot about categories. Everybody who knows what a RMS is, also knows what the Canadarm is, but not vice-versa. But, I'm personally leaving it, since it's not a big enough issue to warrant the major step of a move (or worse a counter move).
  • I don't get your comments about when "history is lost". The history of articles, is (normally) maintained, even through multiple moves. A number of articles show long history, including notes on the moves. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to. --rob 02:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I work at NASA and I am heavily involved with RMS. No one - no one - at NASA refers to these devices as anything but the RMS and the SSRMS. Wikipedia is the only place they are called Canadarms. Leave it like that if you wish, but every informed person who looks at this site will groan, as I do every time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.157.160.13 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

well 128.157.160.13 you can't realy say that you don't know what people call it unless you know every single person at NASA but in canada alot of people call it the Canadarm or the Canadian Arm or the space beer catcher 207.6.168.201 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Title confusion

• Shouldn't this whole article go under SRMS??? There is no such thing as RMS!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.115.174 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd just like to say something about the whole 'Canadarm' vs 'SRMS' deal. I work at NASA, and I work on the SRMS. 100% of the work I do is on the SRMS. 90% of the people I interact with on any given day spend 100% of their time working on the SRMS. In the years I've been doing this I have NEVER heard anyone refer to the system as the 'Canadarm'. Not a single time. Not from anyone in management. Not from the old salty Canadian guys who were working for SPAR 30 years ago when it was built. Not from Shuttle Program managers describing the daily events at a nightly news conferance during a shuttle mission. Not from astronauts, or engineers, or technicians, or our customers. NO ONE AT NASA CALLS IT THE CANADARM. We call it the "SRMS" or we call it "the arm", and in a more formal situation we call it the "shuttle remote manipulator system". The only place I have EVER seen it called the Canadarm.... is Wikipedia. 76.31.137.242 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well at least we know for a fact the Canadian Space Agency refers to it as 'Canadarm'. However with the current international cooperation between NASA and the other various space agencies it makes sense for anyone working within NASA to refer to it by the more neutral, less nationalistic name SRMS. It's also the more professional term, with 'Canadarm' being more of a media nickname to popularize it. 'Canadarm' would be the more widely known name outside of NASA technician circles. So as per WP:COMMONNAME, it's probably the best title for this article. -- œ^™ 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Canadarm was the original name when it was made plus Houstom, Texas area code 713 man have you been anywhere else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

SRMS or Canadarm - contd

who cares what category it is in, the one guy is right, i looked up canadarm and it redirected me to the article called RMS. But sill I think it should be Canadarm, because it was the canadians that developed it and it is a more widely used name than Remote Manipulator system. --69.11.81.236 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've noticed that this page has been recently vandalised (within the past hour, I noticed that the weights were wrong) so I will make a few corrections to it... there are a few more corrections needed as well.

also, only three SRMS are still in operation. YikHei 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

October 28,2010 If I may make a suggestion,just leave both names on. We "the public in general" should have the choice and access to both names. Referring to "old salty Canadian" does not sound very professional in my oponion from somoene who is or was part of NASA. We "Canadians" are very proud of whatever we engineer, design or manufacture. Did you know that the gas dedectors on your launch are also from a Canadian company? We should all appreciate the technology and teamwork no matter what country creates or supplies it. Lets all reach for the stars together. Rollande Ottawa,Ontario Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.134.32 (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

? 74.245.134.32 arnt you from Mims Flordia whats with the Rollande Ottawa, Ontario Canada thing 207.6.168.201 (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone add some information about the grapple fixtures?

Can someone provide a image of a grapple fixture and some description? Like here: Power Data Grapple Fixture? Only for the "unpowered" version, or what it is called. Thanks! 95.119.235.151 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maneuver => manoeuvre, no?

To me the former is the American spelling, highly unsuitable for this article; maybe I'm old-fashioned but "manoeuvre" is what I've changed it to; maybe there's a more modern Canadian spelling "maneuvre", but that would look wrong to me.Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The article was mostly written by Americans. Sometimes articles use unusual regional English variations, for example the ISS page is written in British English despite Britain being significantly less involved in the program than Americans and Canadians. --Craigboy (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be manoeuvre; I'll add the Canadian English template to this page. I found {{British English}} on Talk:Indo-Canadians, and the category for articles worldwide that use British English, even though e.g. Korea, the Philippines and other countries use American spelling; also on Belize and Jamaica and so on, though I'm not sure what the official forms of English there are. But it seems British Wikipedians think their Empire still exists; I've often corrected Canadian history and bio articles to Canadian spelling from British, even when {{Canadian English}} is already there. They also imposed the "power station" British-ism to Canadian and US categories rather high-handedly, even dismissing the one Canadian input (me) with a sort of "Mother Country Knows Best" attitude, with claims in the CfD about the term being common in the US being demonstrable wrong. But logic and consistency are not often followed, nor common sense. I can understand with European English articles that British spelling should be used; but imposing it on countries that do not use it is.......imperialist.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, {{Canadian English}} was already here...... it's not just British who dismiss Canadian English, happens all the time in various ways with American edits too.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)