Jump to content

Talk:STS-115

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vertigociel (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 12 September 2006 (→‎Minor issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions#New missions actions has a list of related pages that all require updating once this mission launches. Please help make sure all corners of Wikipedia stay updated. Rmhermen 13:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Launch Date Updated

I updated the lauch window reflecting the current projection of 9/6 - 9/8. NASA has pretty much taken all dates past 9/8/2006 off the table. If not launched by the 9/8 the shuttle will likely not launch until October.

question

why is it third, not second mission after return to flight? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.129.54 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were two missions between it and the Columbia Disaster.

  1. STS-114 (July/August 2004)
  2. STS-121 (Scheduled for July 1st)
  3. STS-115 (Scheduled for August/September)

I've never fully understood NASA mission numbering. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought that STS 115 should be the next after STS 114 that's why I asked, thanks for the answer

Not necessarily mission STS 115 should follow STS 114. The mission designations are given in the order in which they are planned, but depending on circumstances, a mission might be delayed (or brought up earlier in the launch schedulle), thus changing the orders in which the "numbers" launch. Quase 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When the Return to Flight plan was developed, it became clear that they'd need two flights to get back on the road, not just one - they were wanting to try out all sorts of on-orbit inspection techniques, and they simply couldn't fit them into the STS-114 schedule without crippling that mission. So they created a second "test" mission. This was numbered -121 because the first free number was 121; missions 114 through 120 were firmly planned and changing the documentation would have been confusing. Shimgray | talk | 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Build up

During the post MMT briefing on flight day 2 of STS-121 it was announced that the Go was given for the mating of the External Tank to the Orbiter for STS-115. This 'Go' followed a review of the performance of the external tank on STS-121.

Added that here - for possible addition to the article Richard Taylor 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose linking only to the mission index pages of space.gs, rather than all their updates. Richard Taylor 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done as no objections, in doing so I noted many weren't directly relevant really - as they refered to STS-121. Note these were all added in a single edit, [1], Another example of the same non logged in user adding a load of external links from space.gs to a Shutle page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STS-114&diff=prev&oldid=46675393

space.gs has been massively spammed across Shuttle-related articles before. Frankly, I don't see much point in keeping any at all, as they don't seem to contain significant information that can't come through other sources... Shimgray | talk | 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On examination, space.gs also operates a large number of other domains - I'm currently weeding out all their linkspam. I really don't think there's any reason to link to them at all - do they have anything original or individually important? Shimgray | talk | 15:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night launch

Are we to understand this would be a night (or late evening) launch because of the lighting issue? Quase 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC) That's very unlikley for STS-115, as imaging of the external tank on launch is still important, until the new design of ice frost ramps are installed (and perhaps proven). This limits the number of opportunities for launch to around four per year - not enough to keep to the schedule. Currently a night launch is planned for STS-116 in December. This probably depends on another STS-115 being as "clean" as STS-121. 86.6.10.96 01:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC news reported that this will be a day launch. After the results of tests on the Shuttle have been determined, a desision will be taken over whether subsequent missions could be night launched. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
William Harwood at CBS News has a table of possible launch windows and all of them are daytime launches. You can find them all here: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/115/115windows.html. Palebluedots | talk | 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press briefings

On August 11 there will be a number of STS-115 briefings which will be carried on NASA TV. Some good content for the article might well come out of them. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html

  • 9 a.m. EDT (eastern daylight time)-- Program and International Space Station Assembly Overview Briefing 14.00 BST (British Summer Time)
  • 10:30 a.m. -- STS-115 Mission Overview Briefing 15.30 BST
  • 12.00 a.m -- STS-115 Spacewalk Overview Briefing 17.00 BST
  • 2 p.m. -- STS-115 Crew News Conference 19.00 BST
  • 6 p.m. -- STS-115 Canadian Space Agency Briefing with Mission Specialist Steve MacLean (for Canadian media)

Minor issues

Something seems odd about the phrase: "they will have only one more launch attempt which would be on Saturday". It seems to me that you cannot have "only one more launch attempt". It isn't the attempt that is the subject here, it is the window of oppertunity. The attempt relies on more than the window allone. I'd think this would technically be better: "they will have only one more chance for a launch attempt which would be on Saturday" although less pretty. Comments from native English speakers?

The phrase sounds fine to me, and I'm a native speaker. Maybe a more clear sentence would be "the window of opportuntity provides for only one further attempt, which would be on Saturday."vertigociel 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STS-300 section

Is the section titled STS-300 still relevant because it only gives details for the rescue shuttle crew from this mission who would have flown on STS-300 for STS-121. The STS-301 crew would be more relevant --ClarkF1 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that STS-300 is a bit irrelevent too, although it probably shouldn't be removed unless others also think that it should be removed. I will put the STS-301 crew on the page. DarthVader 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A link to STS-301 is relevant, and that is already in the article. The STS-300 that would have rescued STS-121 is a modified version of STS-115. In essence it IS STS-115. I think it is important to make this fact clear so that people understand the relationship between the two. STS-115 is the big, grand mission, but it STS-121 would have had a problem, all work on STS-115 would have changed into work on STS-300. Cjosefy 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:STS-115&oldid=75220517"