Talk:STS-114/Archive 1

Archive 1

Launch and landing times

NASA Mission Brief notes landing sked for KSC.
--Baylink 00:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cost?

Anyone know the cost of building STS-114? If so, please leave a message on my talk page. • 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? -RPharazon

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 - 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.--Loren 19:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC) From 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.

Mass

Not 0 surely... Rich Farmbrough 15:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Update

Can someone kindly update List of human spaceflights, 2000-present 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.--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 --mitrebox 16:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688: nice work on combining the wikinews links, it looks much better like this! – 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. :) --tomf688^<TALK> 19:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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. Pretzelpaws 18:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. --DNordquist 17:36, 26 July 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.-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). --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. --Timvasquez 02:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. -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)? --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. --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. -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. -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? 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. --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/

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 [1] 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. Richard Taylor 07:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

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? 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?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. Rich Farmbrough 21:25, 3 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." 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. 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. 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 the press conference details. (A lot of the insulation technology is very clever materials science bodging.) Rich Farmbrough 17:58, 5 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. 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. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 08:17, 8 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? 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. Father Rob Lyons 03:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Father Rob Tonywalton 20:56, 9 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 :-) 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.Father Rob Lyons 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The question was asked by 60.234.144.135, not me, Father Rob. As I said (and you also implied), without context it's not possible even to guess, really Tonywalton

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.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. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Landing video?

Anyone recorded it please upload it. 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) Richard Taylor

There was discussion of this, then someone (Ageekgal, was it?) decremented all the numbers by one as originally they included (without explanation) the STS-114 mission. The "not including this mission" figure seems sensible - what would you do for the Challenger or Columbia crews, for example, in an ongoing article? Come to that, if the figure includes "the current misison" should they be updated regularly, say 0.5 days added every 12 hours? . I added the explanation to avoid ambiguity, after the edit to the figures. It seems like a good example to follow for articles on future missions. It would need some fair trawling about to "standardise" the other articles, though Tonywalton

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. (( And, no, I didn't decrement anything. I asked the question but made NO EDITS, because I was unsure of the precedents. )) -- Ageekgal

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. -- Ageekgal

I think a caption stating ( ) indicates number of spaceflights each crew member had completed prior to STS-XXX as we have in the article is best, as it doesn't need updating either on mission completion, or following subsequent missions. The data is already available for extraction from these pages:

• List of human spaceflights, 1961-1986
• List of human spaceflights, 1987-1999
• List of human spaceflights, 2000-present

If going to the trouble of counting, would it be worth listing them and linking to their prior missions, though individual's own entry in the Wikipedia should have that information? Richard Taylor 18:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Question for all STS mission pages

I noticed some/most of the STS mission pages include a nifty formatting element --

STS-114/Archive 1

... 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. -- Ageekgal

I think doing this would be good, and updating the crew stats at the same time. I've looked through the previous missions and some articles are very short with only a handful of contributers - looks like NASA have done a great job in getting our and the rest of the public's attention with this one! Richard Taylor 18:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Landing

Do you know which runway in Edwards Air Force Base the shuttle landed (and give its runway description)? Thanks. Bigtop 23:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite

Just a head's up, I will be doing an extensive re-write of this article, both to give more weight to the importance of it being a Return to Flight mission, but also to bring it in line with the MOS on shuttle missions. (See STS-122 for an example.) It is currently not at all following the layout or formatting, so it will change extensively when I put it into the format that the rest of the articles follow. Additionally, I will be adding many more references, and ultimately, it would be nice to see this article become a good article at the very least. Ariel♥Gold 09:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ground video ufo footage

Um, I'm really sorry to have to ask this, really really sorry, but i was flipping through TV and saw some video footage of this flight from the ground on a History Channel special. The shuttle was in orbit, and something appeared on screen from the other direction. It flew just past the shuttle, stopped, turned a 2d 180 degrees around, caught up to the shuttle and carried on tracking it off the screen. It was probably a UFO special, but it was the eeriest thing I have ever seen in space, although I'm well aware it could be any number of strange optical effects. History channel attributed the footage to NASA, claiming August 5, 2005 as the date. I've trolled youtube and google videos and havent found it. anyone know anything about it? --Rektide 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this the video you're looking for? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoeZ4ceAZes I don't think this is an alien space craft but it is a UFO in that it is unidentified. I don't know enough about this footage to edit the article myself, but someone should include a section about this. I saw this on TV, too. 24.14.76.94 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia isnt intersted in printing the truth, so you'll never get any information about UFO's on the NASA pages, despite there being a torrent of evidence 82.7.152.107 (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on STS-114. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121126231252/http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp1205/html/JeanMarcParatte.html to http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/worldwidepanorama/wwp1205/html/JeanMarcParatte.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)