Jump to content

Talk:STS-127: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 113: Line 113:
*[[Pete Knight]] - Disambig page - no article on Wikipedia - most likely this is listed as an incorrect name, and is referring to the X-15 pilot [[William J. Knight]] - [http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/knight_william.htm No spaceflights] - peak X-15 altitude 280,500 feet - '''Should be removed from list'''
*[[Pete Knight]] - Disambig page - no article on Wikipedia - most likely this is listed as an incorrect name, and is referring to the X-15 pilot [[William J. Knight]] - [http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/knight_william.htm No spaceflights] - peak X-15 altitude 280,500 feet - '''Should be removed from list'''
*[[Mike Adams]] - Disambig page - [[Michael James Adams]] - X-15 pilot - peak X-15 altitude 266,000 feet - [http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/adams_michael.htm no spaceflights] - '''Should be removed from list'''
*[[Mike Adams]] - Disambig page - [[Michael James Adams]] - X-15 pilot - peak X-15 altitude 266,000 feet - [http://www.spacefacts.de/bios/astronauts/english/adams_michael.htm no spaceflights] - '''Should be removed from list'''
:It seems that because the '''maximum''' ceiling for an X-15 is 67 miles (353,760 feet), people are counting '''any''' X-15 flights as spaceflights, even though most did not hit the ceiling ([[X-15#Specifications_.28X-15.29|specifications]] do not say if this is nautical miles, or statute miles) or even 62 miles (327,360 feet) . Technically, I would not consider them spaceflights, and not all of these men were astronauts (although they were all given [http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/X-15_wings.html honorary astronaut] status later in their careers by NASA). Another issue complicating things is the fact that early in the spaceflight program, NASA awarded the [[Astronaut Badge]] to any pilot that had flown above 50 miles, and called them astronauts. From that article: ''The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale defines space flight as more than one hundred kilometres (62.137 mi.) from Earth, a definition recognized by every country except the U.S., which maintains that the outer space boundary is at the fifty (50 mi.) mile (80.467 km) mark.<sup>[citation needed]</sup>'' So it may be this is the inaccurate information. Obviously if NASA is considering Chris to be the 500th person "in space", the statement in that article is not true, even if it once was how NASA considered things. Wikipedia should go with the world standard, which in this case is 62 miles, and the X-15 pilots should be removed from the [[List of space travelers by name]], as I did not find any of them that actually hit the X-15's maximum possible ceiling qualifying them for the 62 mile mark. <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
:It seems that because the '''maximum''' ceiling for an X-15 is 67 miles (353,760 feet), people are counting '''any''' X-15 flights as spaceflights, even though most did not hit the ceiling ([[X-15#Specifications_.28X-15.29|specifications]] do not say if this is nautical miles, or statute miles) or even 62 miles (327,360 feet) . Technically, I would not consider them spaceflights, and not all of these men were astronauts (although they were all given [http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/X-15_wings.html honorary astronaut] status later in their careers by NASA). Another issue complicating things is the fact that early in the spaceflight program, NASA awarded the [[Astronaut Badge]] to any pilot that had flown above 50 miles, and called them astronauts. From that article: ''The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale defines space flight as more than one hundred kilometres (62.137 mi.) from Earth, a definition recognized by every country except the U.S., which maintains that the outer space boundary is at the fifty (50 mi.) mile (80.467 km) mark.<sup>[citation needed]</sup>'' So it may be this is the inaccurate information. Obviously if NASA is considering Chris to be the 500th person "in space", the statement in that article is not true, even if it once was how NASA considered things. Wikipedia should go with the world standard, which in this case is 62 miles, and the X-15 pilots should be removed from the [[List of space travelers by name]], as I did not find any of them that actually hit the X-15's maximum possible ceiling, or even higher than 300,000 feet. <small>[[user:ArielGold|<font color="8B00FF">'''Ariel'''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/ArielGold|<font color="F64A8A">♥</font>]][[User_talk:ArielGold|<font color="007FFF">'''Gold'''</font>]]</small> 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


== Thirteen people in space ==
== Thirteen people in space ==

Revision as of 12:32, 16 June 2009

Template:WPSpace Template:HSF Project Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Oragami Plains

as stated in the ISS under the "Other Project" section this mission (STS-127) will launch the Origami airplane launched from space but I see no referance to that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.223.173.22 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crew list

I removed the crew list that was added, because this mission is still under review, and any information available on other sources such as NASASpaceflight.com's forums cannot be verified and can't be used, (especially if it is listed on the L2 portion of the site, per Chris Bergin). Forums are not a reliable source, and until NASA officially releases the crew list, the crew list should not be added. Please wait until NASA releases the official crew list to add it. Thanks. Ariel♥Gold 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insignia

Please don't add insignia that are not yet officially released by NASA. Although i have no reason to believe that the leaked (trough spacepatches or CollectSpace) images of these patches are not factually and correct, we have no way to verify this. The image won't be deleted yet, and the patch will likely be announced soon enough. Please remember that Wikipedia does not have a timeschedule, and that we prefer verifiable and correct information over speculation at any time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Date

I changed the article to what it was originally like, because I have not seen anywhere on NASA's website that the launch date for this shuttle mission is June 13. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there is no launch date for this mission as formalized and announced by NASA. While the ISS status reports list June 13 as the launch date, those are by no means official dates, and should not be used in place of a release of an official date. The manifest was last updated on March 29th, and lists 'TBD' for STS-127. Until NASA sets an official launch date, the field should probably remain TBD. Ariel♥Gold 01:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Right call to make the launch date "TBD" until Nasa says otherwise. Canada Jack (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crew Photo

why is the crew photo removed i know it was posted here and why was it removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbondfan (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it was ever uploaded to Commons, there were only two STS-127 images up there. I've uploaded the official crew photo and added it here. I looked through the history but did not see the crew image there in the past. Ariel♥Gold 01:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Criticism

See also: Death Star

NASA plans to spend around $5 billion in 2009 for the ISS, while cutting funding for education to $0.1 billion by 2010.[1]

NASA does not plan to use it's space shuttle for any purpose other than servicing the ISS. As the ISS grows more massive, the cost of orbital station-keeping grows increasingly large. The ISS has no way of providing in-situ resource utilization other than from sunlight. A lunar colony, for example, could mine uranium ore and would not have to worry about orbital decay.

ISS astronauts in low earth orbit are using the facility to play internet chess matches and watch star trek movies.[2]

NASA delayed or cancelled other scientific missions in order to pay for the ISS.[3] It is therefore debatable whether the ISS, as distinct from the wider space program, will be a major contributor to society.[4]

The time and money spent on the ISS could be better spent on other projects such as robotic spacecraft missions, space exploration, investigations of problems here on Earth, and education.[5] Dr. Robert L. Park, argued that very little scientific research was convincingly planned for the ISS in the first place.[6][7] Dr. Jeff Foust argued that the ISS requires too much maintenance, especially by risky, expensive EVAs.[8] The Astronomical Society of the Pacific has mentioned that its orbit is rather highly inclined, which makes US launches more expensive.[9] This choice may have increased the costs of completing the ISS substantially.

This material appears to concern the ISS in general, and not this STS mission in particular. But I can't recommend moving it to the ISS article as-is, because it does not conform to NPOV. The "see also" link to Death Star appears to be a flippant editorial comment. Statements like "The time and money spent on the ISS could be better spent on other projects ..." are opinions and should not be stated flatly without attribution. Comments like "ISS astronauts in low earth orbit are using the facility to play internet chess matches and watch star trek movies" do not appear to give proper context for the information, and imply that the facility is being used solely for frivolous activities. Some details may be worth rewriting and moving to ISS, but not in their present form.   Will Beback  talk  18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of it should be in any article. The stuff pointed out is factually in accurate. First, the chess game was played by Greg Chamitoff during his off time. The crews get to listen to music, watch movies and TV shows while on orbit, only during off time, simply because they are up there for 6 months solid. There is no more risk doing an EVA at the ISS then there is for STS-125. Also, in order to cut down on the amount of spacewalks and maintence on the outside of the ISS, is why Dexter was built and sent up. The cost of launch is no more then when missions are launched into 28.5 orbital inclanations, and many shuttle missions in the '90s were at 56.1 inclanation. Now that there is going to be 6 people, they can do a lot more science research. No one expedition is planned years in advanced, and expeditions change continuously because of delays in progress/ATV/HTV and shuttle missions. All member nations help with the costs, its not all paid for by the U.S., Russia puts up a lot of money and now ESA and JAXA are as well. So therefore, I don't think it is right to include the critiscisms in the articles.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue that I neglected to add was the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the manufacture and processing of the shuttle and booster rockets, GHG emissions occur during ascent, and during periodic orbital reboost. Compared with terrestrial sources these emissions are quite small. The GHG issue has led me to the conclusion that "murder" and "war" are actually much more environmentally friendly than the "visionary" space explorers of our generation. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reply doens't address the concerns about the material above. However the matter of GHGs from the shuttle is the same for every mission, so there's no reason to include that in this article. The best place for that material would be Criticism of the Space Shuttle program.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters section

While attempting to help make mission articles look more encyclopedic, reader friendly, and less "tech-listy", (the average reader has no idea what an apogee or perigee is, nor do they care) I've removed the section titled "parameters" and moved all those items into the infobox as designed. The infobox has many fields of information available in it, and only a part of it is being used in the shuttle mission articles. There is no reason to present information in a list in the article, when the infobox has been coded to handle that information. Ariel♥Gold 15:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crew

I would like to propose a change to the crew section. I would like to make it a table with the the astronauts name and designation. The designations could include mission specialist, flight engineer and lead space walker. An example would be like the tables recently put in on the Expedition 19, 20 and 21 pages. This could be implemented on all spaceflights. I believe it would make it easier to understand who is who and what there role during the mission is.

Much better. Thank you. (You forgot to sign!) AugustinMa (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did forget to sign, thought I did. I will create a table and put it in my sandbox box for people to take a look at.--Navy blue84 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got it done and is in my Sandbox. If everyone agrees I will put it up in this article and work at getting one done for the others.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I'm not a fan of it. Just my personal opinion but I find it harder to read at a glance and get the information I want quickly. Maybe go back to placing the number of spaceflights in brackets next to the name to reduce some of the clutter? Php man (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its that cluttered at all. Its very easy to read, and flows nicely. We will see if anyone else says anything. As to the placement of the number of spaceflights, I think the way it is, is better.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people on the ISS

With the 7 STS 127 crew, there will be 13 people on the ISS. Is it the first time there will be so many people on board the ISS? Maybe it's worth documenting. AugustinMa (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Added to mission background with a couple other items.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500th person in space

From the STS 127 crew press conference, I learned that one of the crew member would be the 500th person in space. AugustinMa (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will be Chris Cassidy given his seat position behind pilot Doug Hurley (the crew agree on this designation for Cassidy). Hurley will be #499 and Cassidy will be #500 (albeit by mere fractions of fractions of a second). Php man (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of space travelers by name, there have already been 504 people in space (using the U.S. definition). Looks like NASA is having trouble counting again. Rillian (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't to do with how NASA counts but rather the Federation Aeronautique Internationale, the world governing body for astronautics records. By their definition -- which is accepted by all spacefaring nations -- space begins at 62 miles, and only 498 (before STS-127) people have flown above that altitude. --collectSPACE (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. So it would seem to me that the four people on the above list who did not reach 62 miles (nautical, I assume?) should not be listed there, since they were not technically "in space". I wonder if there is a way to know which four it is? Ariel♥Gold 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found six candidates:
Can you check. --GW… 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Researched above for GW

It seems that because the maximum ceiling for an X-15 is 67 miles (353,760 feet), people are counting any X-15 flights as spaceflights, even though most did not hit the ceiling (specifications do not say if this is nautical miles, or statute miles) or even 62 miles (327,360 feet) . Technically, I would not consider them spaceflights, and not all of these men were astronauts (although they were all given honorary astronaut status later in their careers by NASA). Another issue complicating things is the fact that early in the spaceflight program, NASA awarded the Astronaut Badge to any pilot that had flown above 50 miles, and called them astronauts. From that article: The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale defines space flight as more than one hundred kilometres (62.137 mi.) from Earth, a definition recognized by every country except the U.S., which maintains that the outer space boundary is at the fifty (50 mi.) mile (80.467 km) mark.[citation needed] So it may be this is the inaccurate information. Obviously if NASA is considering Chris to be the 500th person "in space", the statement in that article is not true, even if it once was how NASA considered things. Wikipedia should go with the world standard, which in this case is 62 miles, and the X-15 pilots should be removed from the List of space travelers by name, as I did not find any of them that actually hit the X-15's maximum possible ceiling, or even higher than 300,000 feet. Ariel♥Gold 12:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen people in space

Despite the AP reference, this will not be the first time that there have been thirteen people in space. It has happened on several occasions, most recently between 26 and 29 March this year, with Soyuz TMA-13, Soyuz TMA-14 and STS-119 in orbit. It will, however, be the first time that there have been thirteen people aboard a single spacecraft (or at least a docked complex). --GW… 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Ariel♥Gold 03:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think Marcia Dunn knows this too. It depends on one's understanding of "together" in a phrase like, "together in space". I have no objection to ArielGold's rewording per se. It is only slightly less strong, i.e. it doesn't say that there were never 13 people aboard the conjoined Shuttle/Mir spacecraft. There weren't, so the assertion could actually be made a bit stronger than as it is currently expressed! (sdsds - talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional clarification was added to the crew notes area, but I've moved it into the lead since there's no reason to have it spread out. Feel free to update! Ariel♥Gold 09:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about scrub

A launch scrub is not an unusual occurrence, nor does it require its own section in the article, giving it undue weight. Also, google/yahoo URLs are not stable, they become inactive after a matter of days, so should not be used as references. The same article is often picked up by regular news sources with stable URLs, so please find those, rather than using google/yahoo URLs. In the same vein, the general NASA shuttle page changes multiple times a day, so that is also not something that should be used as a reference, as the item mentioned may not be there the next day. Additionally, forums are not reliable sources, so I've removed the references that were going to forum threads. Finally, I'm removing the original research claiming this is a "particular concern" to NASA, because it is not. Scrubs are both common, and expected (especially with summer weather in Florida! lol), and while this scrub was not weather related, and there are some constraints to the June launch window due to LRO and LCROSS and the beta angle cutout, it does not automatically affect the completion of the ISS after one scrubbed launch. That information is purely speculation, and not backed up by the reference that was given. It also was directly contradicted during the press conference, when a reporter asked if it was a serious setback. It is not. If they cannot launch in June, there is another window that is quite long in July, and would have little to no effect on the downstream processing timeline. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a sensationalist website that sees things as the worst possible thing any time something goes wrong. Thanks, Ariel♥Gold 08:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the subject of Google/Yahoo references, I would say that there is nothing wrong with using them, but an archive link via WebCite, or a similar (on demand) service should be provided as well. --GW… 09:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my experience is those google/yahoo links go out of date very quickly, usually within a week they become dead. I have found that the same article can almost always be found on CNN, Reuters, or another major news site that would have a stable link, so I tend to use those. :) Ariel♥Gold 10:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ NASA (2010). "NASA's Budget". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved April 28 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Jesus Diaz (2008). "Space Station Astronaut Challenges Planet Earth to Chess Match". Gizmodo. Retrieved Mar 28 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  3. ^ NASA (2010). "NASA Launch Schedule". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved May 2 2009. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  4. ^ RSC Energia (2005). "Interview with Niolai (sic) Sevostianov, President, RSC Energia: The mission to Mars is to be international". Mars Today.com/SpaceRef Interactive Inc. Retrieved 2009-03-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  5. ^ Mail & Guardian. "A waste of space". Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-15.
  6. ^ Park, Bob. "Space Station: Maybe They Could Use It to Test Missile Defense". Retrieved 2009-03-23.
  7. ^ Park, Bob. "Space: International Space Station Unfurls New Solar Panels". Retrieved 2007-06-15.
  8. ^ Jeff Foust (2005). "The trouble with space stations". The Space Review. Retrieved 2009-03-23. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
  9. ^ James J. Secosky, George Musser (1996). "Up, Up, and Away". Astronomical Society of the Pacific. Retrieved September 10 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:STS-127&oldid=296744728"