|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Currently the article isn't big enough for more than one image, especially with the factbox, so I was hesitant to place the first image there. Once there is more information, however, I'd like to tell people that there is a pretty good image of the crew at STS-121_crew.jpg if a second image is needed. Andromeda321 22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- It seems likely that STS-121 will not make the May launch window due to the fact that a launch-on-demand shuttle will not be ready for a possible rescue mission. July 2006 now seems a more likely launch date.Subzero788 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Is the countdown really currently at T-99 Days 23 Hours 59 Minutes 59 Seconds and Holding like  suggests? If it is at T-99 Days, etc, then wouldn't it have to be launching sometime in June 2006 at the minimum? DarthVader 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, the window for the launch has been changed until July 2006. It was changed just a few hours after I wrote this question. DarthVader 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
noting that the sites contains daily news updates, and interviews. Deep links would continue to be used in the references. Richard Taylor 02:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Done as no one objected Richard Taylor 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
To Do List
There's a few things that I think could improve the article:
- A gallery, see STS-114, there are many public domain images made available by NASA and more will be released during the flight.
- Following launch the timeline could change from Day one, Day two etc. to dates. - or at least change them to "Flight day two", and make all the "day" headings the same level of heading - currently the flight days are lesser headings than the dates such as July 1.
- The wake up songs and their meanings could be listed.
- Links for watching the flight - NASA TV + mirrors, landing tracking etc. could be added
- A section on thoughts on foam safety prior to launch, and a section on the changes made between sts-114 and this flight.
- Detail on the equipment being taken up, most items could well deserve articles of their own.
- Linking the article from other appriopriate articles, and submitting key events to Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates
- Since i created STS-121 Timeline The timeline section will be cleaned up.
- Jer10 95 07:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In anyone else has suggestions they don't have the time/ability/inclination to act on themselves then do add them above. Richard Taylor 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions has a list of articles which will all need updating after the launch occurs - see the "New missions actions" sections. If it occurs on schedule I will be out of town myself. Rmhermen 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- No (Answering my own question - according to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000207.html it has never flown)Richard Taylor 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
July 4th attempt
If NASA says that they are go for launch, how about a "daytime version" of fireworks? Launch time (estimated, planned) should be at 2:38 PM EDT/11:38 AM PDT. --Bigtop (tk|ea|cb|em|nk|tk:nk) 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Video footage of takeoff?
Can anyone upload a footage or at minimum provide an externel link to the takeoff video? 22.214.171.124 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"Before the accident, Columbia had been assigned to missions STS-118 and STS-121. The STS-118 mission, also an International Space Station flight, was, at first, re-assigned to Discovery, but has since been assigned to Space Shuttle Endeavour."
- WP:NOT a discussion forum. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is chock-full of passive voice. If anyone knows who the subjects of most of these sentences are, could you please add them? Perhaps "NASA technicians" would suffice for most cases. --Doradus 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That is a matter of style. Personally, I think that if the source is considered reliable, then Wikipedia should just state it as true and provide a citation. If the editors disagree, then fine, state the source. If there is disagreement about the Truth, then state the sources. Otherwise, state it as True — editors focusing on verification can worry about re-evaluating a the reliability of the source. It is more repsectful of the reader's time and results in higher-quality prose to just state the Truth when it is known from a reliable source. Again, citations must be provided. -- 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
This term is used a few times but is unexplained. Can someone clarify its meaning. --Atrian 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I just updated the section on mission parameters and noticed it was in conflict with the infobox at the top. So a couple of points
- the apogee/altitude should be at least that of the ISS, definitely over 300km - my figures in the main text are taken from the ISS article which is probably a fraction out of date but not by much.
- we probably only need the information once - in the infobox? - but obviously it should be accurate.
Joffan 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"The mission lasted for almost 13 days total before disintegrating in the atmosphere above North America on July 17, 2006 at approximately 9:14:43 AM EDT. All 7 crew members were lost."
This statement seems extremely misleading. --126.96.36.199 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
An award! Congratulations!
|On behalf of myself and the Kindness Campaign, I'd like to present this page with a gold medal for a job well done. Great job all contributors! Keep it up! ♥ JamieJones talk|
CDT vs. EDT. vs. UTC
It seems strange to use CDT for the landing timeline, considering local time was EDT.. more generally, we should come to a concensus about it; this would regard changes to all STS missions, and should be discussed here. Mlm42 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)