Talk:STS-126

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Penalty[edit]

In a high school football game, out team stopped to watch the space shuttle take off. we have footage of the takeoff on our film. Also the ref called a penalty for delay of game on the offense and it was funny as hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.95.245 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

SARJ problem and repair[edit]

A plan for dealing with the serious ISS SARJ problem, also discussed on the ISS page, has now begun to emerge, and it appears it will be the primary objective for STS-126. Refs from "Spaceflight Now" and "Aviation Week" have been added. Wwheaton (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you put a bit more info(links to diffrent pages like NASA) either on the page or in here. The info you found is good info, but is very little. I think we need to get some more info. For the time being I think it should be left up as it is probably the plan.--navy_blue84 Navy Blue 15:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talkcontribs)

"27th mission to the ISS"[edit]

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but this is clearly wrong, as the Russian missions to the ISS are not being counted. Unless someone wants to make the rather amazing argument that Russian trips to the ISS are not "missions," this should be reworded as ...27th shuttle mission... The ultimate source for this would seem to be NASA, but they are clearly referring to shuttle missions here. Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The missoins being counted are only those by NASA. The RSA missions are carrying expedition crew members. I have changed it to reflect that it was the 27th assembly mission to the ISS.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone reading the stats would confuse the "27th mission to the ISS" with Soyuz flights, because the stats, and the article, are shuttle-specific, just like the other stats. While the word "mission" can be very loosely used, the Soyuz launches and RSA are focused on crew rotation, and are technically called Expeditions, not missions. Missions are generally shorter term, goal specific undertakings, while Expeditions are long-term, crews living on board the station flights. While most of the missions to the ISS (from NASA) are assembly-focused, in this flight's case, is more of a maintenance mission, intended to repair the SARJ, and replenish the station's supplies. To that end, the word "assembly" was removed, and I'll add the word "shuttle" for clarity. ArielGold 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I read "27th mission" and thought that there were more missions than that - I checked and realized that this number had to mean shuttle missions. I'm not sure that it would be incorrect to call a Soyuz flight a "mission," this parsing of terms is not at all evident, and I'm not even sure you are correct. After all, while the Soyuz's mission is often to deliver Expedition crews, the flights themselves aren't "expeditions." Guests not part of the Expeditions and are frequently on those flights, and shuttle flights deliver members of the Expedition crews. "Expeditions," in other words, are not defined by the particular Soyuz flight. Also, the statistics above the one in question refer to Nasa-specific events. But the ISS is not Nasa-specific, it has significant international participation. Perhaps we should simply amend as I suggest and as Ariel seems to suggest by adding "shuttle" between "27" and "mission. Canada Jack (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Shuttle" has been inserted by someone... I will now be quiet. Canada Jack (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, I added the word "shuttle" to clarify. And I did not say that RSA or NASA do not consider Soyuz flights "missions", but that their purpose is to rotate the Expedition crews, and that is a different thing than shuttle missions for assembly, maintenance, and support. As I said, these are shuttle articles, and thus, the statistics are shuttle related. ArielGold 21:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

References and Yahoo[edit]

Just a note to avoid issues in the future, when adding references, please do not ever use "yahoo news" as a source. Those URLs are not stable, they become invalid after mere weeks, sometimes sooner. Instead, find the original source of the news article (usually the Associated Press), using a google search, and or use a stable URL from another news source/NASA. Thanks! ArielGold 18:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right advise actually. The reason these yahoo links disappear, is because the Associated Press, Reuters and AFP only allow websites to post/use their news online for a "limited time". As such any news provided by these agencies is supposed to "disappear" from the internet after a few weeks/months. Therefore, news by NASA, NYT, CBS and other respectable news papers and TV channels with their own writing staff, in addition to expertise websites (space.com) should be the preferred sources for reference links. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
That's my point, the URLs go invalid because of the time limits, so to use alternate respectable source URLs or NASA URLs instead of Yahoo is preferred. AFP and AP both archive their stories on permanent URLs in almost all of the cases I've found (simply search the article's title and the original AP/AFP URL is almost always right near the top), and since the yahoo/google URLs aren't stable, they shouldn't be used, because it means more work for someone later when the URLs go dead. So why is it not the right advice to suggest using better URLs, like MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NASA, or when available, the original URL from AP? It isn't a good idea to use URLs for references when it is known they won't be stable. Sorry if I didn't word it right or something, but that was exactly my point, lol. ArielGold 13:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Original URLs from AP go bust as well. I recently discovered just how much the AP/AFP/Reuters news sucks, when I was using checklinks. You can't find anything back unless you pay those organizations good money. Try looking for STS-120 in the AP archives for instance. google search for an AP item that i'm positive of once existed. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Doh, that bites. I know that just a couple weeks ago I located an original AP URL from an article that was years old, so I wonder if they are phasing them out slowly. Either way, using NASA URLs, or mainline news agencies is always best, and avoiding URLs from google or yahoo. ArielGold 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Launch Template[edit]

Could someone please add a launch template to the article? Thank you! --68.60.67.149 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know how you can change the image in a template? I can't find the source for the launch photo. Why not have something like this for the shuttle template? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Shuttle.svg --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. And CapeCanaveral321, I mean no offense, but I think that a better picture of the shuttle would be a good choice. Since this is a night launch, we could have a picture of a Space Shuttle night launch, for example, STS-116, because it was the 1st night shuttle night launch since the Columbia disaster. For day-time launches, we could do a picture of a day-time shuttle launch, such as maybe STS-114. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The template is to provide notice of and notes on an upcoming launch. It is not a decorative feature. The same image is used for every other launch that it is used on, manned or unmanned. Why should this one be any different? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 07:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The Day that Endeavour lifts off[edit]

On November 14, I will be checking all the NASA Websites to see the minute that Endeavour launch. This is going to be the first time I will be checking on a Space Shuttle Misson. I will witness the moment Endeavour rises above the blue sky. --Ameoy25 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You can watch it online, NASA TV is public, over the internet television, 24 hours a day. Welcome to shuttle watching! ArielGold 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Most major news outlets will carry the launch live on the web as well.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A reminder on time formatting, Manual of Style[edit]

Just a quick reminder as we head into the launch, actions that occur on the ground, should be given in the local time. In all shuttle launches, that is Eastern time (KSC). Actions that occur on orbit, should be given in UTC, and when appropriate, in parentheses, eastern time given. So all pre-launch and launch times should be given in the following format: Thursday, November 6, at 8:13 a.m. (It was decided over a year ago that since NASA reports the times in lowercase a.m./p.m. format, Wikipedia will follow.) Also, please remember not to abbreviate months. Finally, please do not forget to italicize the names of station modules, shuttles, or other proper nouns where appropriate. Go Endeavour! ArielGold 13:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added [ ] around the UTC launch date/time in the info box. It looked a little confusing and like there was 2 launches. I did not remove it because some countries do use UTC/GMT.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I really do not think that having all that cluttering up the infobox is necessary. The time should be given in local time, (EST) and time in UTC is given at the top in the template. I would suggest removing the UTC from the infobox as it makes it more difficult to read. ArielGold 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%. I did not want to remove it, unless there was some form of agreement. I will move UTC from info box.--Navy blue84 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
With UTC it's easier to read because I don't have to look on the Internet what is the shift between EST and UTC. I don't have to remember it. With UTC I just have to know what is my timezone, I don't have to care about local timezones in US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.137.41 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The normal time policy for google is that local time is the primary times given and UTC is in paraphs. The other noteworthy policy is that local time is space is considered UTC. So take off times for the US Space Shuttle program are always primarily given in EST/EDT and when as is usually the case the landing site is also Kennedy landing times are also EST/EDT while everything else about the mission is UTC. Jon (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Right, which is basically an easy to remember rule of "Ground events" are in the time zone that is local to where they occur (in this case, Florida) and "On orbit" events are given in UTC. When appropriate, Florida time (EST) is given in parentheses after the UTC time for on-orbit events. It has worked that way for years and makes sense in the context of "in space" articles. ArielGold 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mission Timeline[edit]

Instead of having 2 separate sections for the time line, how about one section with 2 subsections. Maybe go with Time line for the section heading and then planned and actual as the subheadings. I think it would make it a little more organized and easier to read that way.--Navy blue84 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is how it has been done for nearly two years, each day the actual events, with references will go into the main timeline, and that day will be removed from the planned timeline. At the end of the mission, the planned timeline section will no longer exist, and just the one header will be in the article. See here for what it looks like during a mission, and here for what the final header order is after a mission is completed. The actual countdown starts 3 days prior to launch, so the "Launch preparations" subsection will be under the "Mission timeline" header, and then each day is given another subheader of its own. Once the mission starts, it will make sense. :) ArielGold 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
To solve the confusion, I simply hid the section of the timeline that won't begin until mission begins. ArielGold 17:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Your right, I just wanted to save on the confusion for those who may not know a whole lot about how it works. Maybe once we get down to where the Launch preparations section goes in, then it can be unhidden and some sort of a note put in, like "as daily time line is done during mission, it will be moved from the planned to the actual time line section".--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Crew[edit]

The way the crew is listed makes no sense at all. MS1 and MS2 are usually flight engineers and are right behind the commander and pilot. The astronauts on the flight deck are Chris Ferguson, Eric Boe, Don Pettit and Steve Bowen are on the flight deck. The others are down on the mid-deck. I was just thinking shouldn't Pettit and Bowen be listed after the commander and pilot?--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Press Kit released after the FRR: Petit is MS1, Bowen is MS2, Piper is not listed as having a specific MS designation, but the placement would indicate she is MS3, Kimbrough is MS4. CBS News however, has the order differently, but that graphic was not updated after the Press Kit was released, so the article should go with the most recent NASA documentation. Once the Execute package comes out for FD2, it can be confirmed. (Where they sit is not particularly relevant to the article, and seating information has never previously been part of shuttle flight articles.) ArielGold 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree it is not relevant. I didn't want to change it, as I was unsure who changed it and why. I do know that Pettit and Bowen are both on the flight deck and are designated as the "flight engineers".--Navy blue84 (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mission duration[edit]

I saw in the mission statistics box that the mission is going to last 16 days. Previously, it had said 15 days. Did NASA change their flight plan for this mission, or did someone vandalize the page? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been noted on NASA. I am going to change it back, as it was probably just an accident.--Navy blue84 (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --68.60.67.149 (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw that it has changed back to 16 days. Someone is saying that launch day does add 1 day to the duration. Permission to change it back? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The official NASA website says that it is 15 days. ([1]) Therefore, it should be changed back. Nat682 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The difference is the physical spaceflighttime of the orbiter vs. the flightdays for the crew. So it's a 16 day mission that will be in space for 15 days and ±19 hours (planned). --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The most recent document put out following the FRR (Flight Readiness Review), the Press Kit, has the mission at 16 days. CBS News also reports it as a 16 day mission. Yes, the cumulative elapsed time at the end of the mission may be only 15 days and some hours, but the Flight days are 16. (An additional docked day will also likely be added to the mission if consumables allow for it, but those decisions are usually made at the end of the first week.) I changed it to 16 because that is what the supporting documentation and reliable references give. NASA's STS-126 page was written before the Flight Plan came out, and also as mentioned by DJ above, calculates it as physical flight time, not days. For the purposes of Wikipedia, a day means a day, it should read 16 days, because if you count it on your calendar, the shuttle will be in orbit for 16 days, it is just that the launch and landing are not full days. At the end of the mission, the infobox will be changed to show exact days, hours, and minutes. But for the average Wikipedia reader, it is a mission that will cover 16 days. I will not yet change it back, but I believe it should be changed back to say 16 days until the mission is over, at which time the elapsed time will be given. ArielGold 17:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying. You are counting it by flight days, and then the total mission elapsed time will be about 15-16 days. Thanks for clarifying. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You're most welcome. :) The issue is that a good majority of those editing these types of articles are maybe "too familiar" with how NASA sees and writes things (for example, in terms of MET - Mission Elapsed Time, it is a 15+ day mission), but we have to remember that the average Wikipedia reader is not at all familiar with these things, and articles should be written so even a school student can understand them. So in this case, technically it is going to cover 16 days, so for all intents and purposes until the final MET can be put into the infobox with D/H/M, it is a sixteen day mission. ArielGold 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify here, the mission duration is planned for 14 days 18 hours 23 minutes, based on current landing opportunity. --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --68.60.67.149 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, keep in mind that this is not NASA, this is Wikipedia. The mission spans 16 days. Wikipedia counts a day as a day, so until the mission is over, and the MET is posted, for the purposes of the article, it is a mission that covers 16 different days. ArielGold 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Orbital altitude (225 km) never can be true!!![edit]

Altitude of ISS is at least 320km... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.85.73 (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the altitude can be 224KM, seeing as the actual altitude is is 122 Nautical Miles. The orbit of the ISS is 190 Nautical Miles, however that will be changed when the shuttle launches and docks to the station, or after the mission.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
See Orbital Tracking for up to date mileage. The orbital altitude in the infobox should reflect where the shuttle is going to be the majority of the mission, thus, it should read 190nm. (350km) I'm not sure why someone put the insertion altitude in there, since the shuttle is only at that altitude for a limited time. ArielGold 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I just undid the change. The alttitude was at 120NM already, and I have no idea who put that there.--Navy blue84 (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It still makes no sense to me why the infobox has 122nm in the altitude. For the majority of the mission, the shuttle will be at the same altitude as the ISS, which is 190nm. It will only be at the orbital insertion altitude for hours, if that. Yet it appears that this seems to be some sort of "standard" that is put into every infobox for every shuttle mission. It makes no sense. If someone can explain why this is, and why it should remain, fine, otherwise, I support changing it to the proper altitude of the mission. ArielGold 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree Ariel. Could it be it is in the template(if there is one for the info box)?--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not something that is auto-filled in, it is just a field in the infobox. I'm not sure when it started, but it goes back many, many missions. Almost all of them say 122nm. ArielGold 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So, I guess this was never resolved.. now that it has been pointed out, 225km certainly seems like a mistake to me - across several articles, and not just this one. But maybe I am misinterpreting something. Mlm42 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is incorrect to use 122nm as the mission's altitude. I was just hoping someone might be able to shed light on why that number is consistently being put into the infobox of every single flight. I support changing it to the current ISS altitude for shuttle-ISS missions. ArielGold 01:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just floating an idea here, but what if there were to altitudes were put there. It could be listed as undocked:122NM and docked: 190NM. That way its known that when the shuttle isn't docked to the station that its at a different altitude.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's really no mystery how 122 NM got in every article, someone just copied the number from one article and pasted it in when creating all the others. Jon (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The shuttle is not at 122nm for more than a few hours for ISS missions or HST missions. I'm not sure of the altitude they used when doing Spacehab missions, but I would guess it was higher than 122nm. I think that wherever the majority of the mission is spent is appropriate, because on approach, and after separation, altitude varies (up or down, depending on if before or after mission), so it wouldn't really be practical to try to put two numbers in the infobox. ArielGold 23:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Launch time[edit]

I don't want to start an argument, but I think that the launch time should be changed to 7:55:39 PM EST. I understand that some of the edit summaries say it's 7:55:31 PM per NASA MET. But I saw several pages on CBS's space place that the time was 7:55:39 PM. I saw that same time listed as the in-plane time for the launch window. And finally, that is what Spaceflightnow.com's story on the launch is saying. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, when I was going off of the displayed MET, it was prior to any news articles coming out (minutes after launch) and I was simply waiting until a news reported the exact seconds, and going for what time correlated with the display clock. ArielGold 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Historical link[edit]

I'm sure the fact that this day 20 years before Buran shuttle was launched is noteworthy. Why this section shouldn't be in the article?

STS-126 launch marks 20 years after a major spaceflight mission, the only automatic shuttle flight. Svmich (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Buran is notable, but its connection to STS-126 is quite incidental. The fact that it occurred 20 years ago is insignificant. It is linked in Space Shuttle for interested readers. We could come up with many minor historical (and somewhat contrived) connections if we tried. For example, STS-95 launched ten years ago, but that is not enough of a notable connection to this mission to include. Again, I'm not saying Buran is not notable, and it's similarities and differences to the U.S. space shuttle program are discussed in its article, but it really has little relevance here any more than any other shuttle flight. Ward3001 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank's for taking part in the discussion, Ward3001. What I mean by this section is a major spaceflight event (Buran flight), not Buran spacecraft alone (and it is OK to have Buran linked in Space Shuttle apart from this issue). First, as for STS-95, it was launched in October. And second I'm not sure it is correct to compare Buran flight with any of US shuttle flights when seeking analogies to explain why «that is not enough of a notable connection to this mission to include». And it is this launch time very close proximity (just 2 hours and 5 minutes off the mark) that makes the fact interesting for readers.
As for relevance, I feel it has exactly as much relevance in the article as may be expected under «Historical link» title of the section. No hints, of course. I don't think we can prove this launch time was chosen intentionally or coincidentally. Svmich (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My comments pertain to both Buran spacecreaft and its flight. My point about STS-95 was only as a hypothetical example (that I found very quickly) of how we can contrive numerous historical links of STS-126 with other events, but it's a simple coincidence, and we don't need to include such remotely related events. If STS-95 had launched on November 15 I would feel the same about not including it. Hindsight allows us to make more out of such remote connections than they actually merit. For example, a series of coincidences between the Kennedy assassination and the Lincoln assassination (e.g., Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln, and Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy) were once included in a Wikipedia article, but they were removed because they were simple coincidences that were not notable. If I spent a few hours looking through the history of space flight, I could probably come up with a few "historical links", but they do not belong in the article. I don't see the important connection between a flight 20 years ago (even if it launched on the same date); the date is just coincidence. And other than that coincidence, the Buran flight is not any more connected with STS-126 than it is with any other space shuttle flight.
Notability has some gray areas, and my opinion is that this one is not close enough to include. Let's see what others might have to say. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with Ward, coincidence has no relevance to the current mission. The fact that it was around the same time as the Buran flight 20 years ago has absolutely no effect on the STS-126 mission whatsoever. ArielGold 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ward and Ariel. There are literally an infinite number of "coincidences" one can come up with between two otherwise entirely unrelated events. Why should this coincidence be notable while others aren't? --Resplendent (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ward and Ariel as well. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everyone one the Braun link. However, I think it maybe worth noting in the article that the shuttle will be docked to the station when ISS marks its 10th anniversary in orbit. That to me is a significant milestone and historical fact that should be noted.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that on the 20th, the crew and the ground team will mention it, so when that day comes, for the daily summary, any relevant quotations or links will be included. ArielGold 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make an interesting historical note. It is related to US Space Shuttle in the following: it was also a space shuttle program, it has roots in US Space Shuttle program, capable of performing similar tasks, while representing a very different view in design and construction of what may appear to be a similar space transportation system. View of and implemented within another space program by a different space engineering school of another country, involving a separate launcher, not designed for any specific payload (shuttle or anything); involving shuttle control system for fully automated (unpiloted) spaceflight. Though it does have direct and clear analogy to US Space Shuttle. And it is related specifically to STS-126 by the launch time.

Gagarin's flight was not a space shuttle program, and it was much less connected to US Space Shuttle program than Buran did. But STS-1 article does have a note about 20 years after that flight.

By the way, STS-126 launch was even closer to 20-year mark (2 h 5 min before the mark), than STS-1 was relating to the first human spaceflight (about 6 hours after the mark).

I'm not quite sure why we shouldn't mention it for STS-126, whereas STS-1 does have a similar note. Svmich (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We all know about Buran here I think. That still doesn't seem like a good reason to me though. If NASA mentions it in the coming days, my opinion might change, but until then, this discussion is unlikely to convince me otherwise. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

TheDJ, I don't think it is a good approach to look at any space agency public position on some issue instead of judging by ourselves. Svmich (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Svmich, as has been stated several times above, all the information you present above about Buran (with the lone and non-notable exception of date coincidence) are arguments about the notability of Buran, not the notability of it's connection to STS-126. As for the STS-1's mention of Gagarin's flight: First, the fact that other stuff exists is usually not a good argument for an encyclopedia that is constantly under revision. Secondly, the mention in the STS-1 article is very brief (not an entire section). And finally, consensus sometimes results in exceptions. There may have been a consensus to include there, but there certainly isn't consensus to include it here. Ward3001 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But why do you assume that the Buran spaceflight needs to have greater connection to STS-126 flight specifically (than listed in my previous post) just to be noteworthy? This is an odd requirement and it is clearly not applicable to the note about Gagarin's spaceflight in STS-1 article.

As for a separate section, I wasn't sure that adding the text to any of the existing sections would be appropriate. STS-1 article contains that note within «Mission highlights» section. STS-126 article does not have such section. Instead I decided to create a section named more specifically «Historical link», though I am still open to any suggestions on where to place the note within an existing section, may be even with some changes to that section. Svmich (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a final point; endless debate by the same editors, often repeating ourselves, does not help achieve consensus. My point is this: Buran needs a significant connection to STS-126 because you want to place the information in the STS-126 article rather than another article. Information placed in the article must be relevant to it beyond simple coincidence, and Buran has no special relevance to STS-126 except for the coincidence of dates. Except for the date coincidence, it is no more related to STS-126 than it is to STS-125, STS-124, etc. Now, unless you have a new point or there are opinions expressed by several more editors to tip the consensus in favor of including the Buran information, that's my final comment on this matter. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who follows the Soviet/Russian space programs and who generally likes to see more credit given to their achievements, I find the suggestion to note the Buran anniversary as something completely irrelevant to the article in question. I think the only way it should come on this page is if someone at Nasa saw fit to mark this anniversary in some substantial way, or if the Russians saw fit to note the anniversary and the launch on the same day as being something substantial. As far as I can see here, the only person making note of this is the poster himself.

I checked STS 1 when this was brought up the other day, and, indeed, note was made there of the anniversary there - Gagarin's first flight. The difference between STS 1 and here is that both Nasa and the Soviets at the time noted the coincidence. That, for me, should be the criterion. If there is a coincidence that could or could not make it to the page, we should ask "are the parties in question noting the coincidence as well?" If so, than I'd say include it in the text. If not, than I'd say no. In this case, therefore, we should not make note of it as its signifigance seems to be limited to the poster and few others. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NASA also mentioned the coincidence of STS-98 and STS-122 launching on the same day, but that is even more since Space Shuttle Atlantis flew both missions and both missions delivered labs to the ISS. -MBK004 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

trundle bearings.[edit]

Noticed someone changed 11->12. To get this cleared up. Each SARJ has 12 assemblies, but the one in question only has 11 of them installed atm. One was removed previously by expd. 16. (also 1 of the 22 covers was removed for continuos inspections. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct, which is why I put 11 in the note. They are not replacing the 12th, but only doing work on eleven of them. I'll correct it again and will put the explanation in as well. 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, i'm guessing they will install the 12th as well, so in that respect, they are servicing 12 TBAs, But replacing only 11. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually they are only replacing 11. The 12th was replaced by Peggy Whitson and Dan Tani during Expedition 16.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Piper[edit]

Before it turns into an editing war, I'd like to ask opinions about Heide Stefanyshyn-Piper's name. NASA documents refer to her both as Stefanyshyn-Piper, and as simply "Piper". [2], [3], [4], etc. The flight plan, execute packages, and daily reports all refer to her as "Piper". PAO uses both terms equally, although the commentators tend to choke on her full name, and so maybe they tend to call her "Piper" more often due to this. In the status reports, it seems that they fully spell out her hyphenated name upon first mention, but from there on, refer to her simply as "Piper". Obviously, there is no other crewmember that readers could possibly confuse her with, and her name is fully spelled out and linked in the crew list, so it seems to me that it is unnecessary to always give her full hyphenated name, since NASA does not do so. Wikipedia's manual of style states that it is proper to "use the form of the name that is most common for referring to the person in question". I support using her full hyphenated name upon first mention for each daily summary, but for subsequent mentions, it seems a bit irrelevant, and "Piper" is sufficient. Thoughts?

I agree with using her full hyphenated name the first time in each section, and there after just using Piper. Its a lot of extra letters when typing out her full name.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Extension[edit]

Is it possible that the mission will be extended due to problems with the water recycling system? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible for the mission to be extended. They could even add a 5th EVA to the mission. They are discussing there options now and we may get word tonight if they are going to extend the mission. The mission status briefing is at 9:30pm EST/8:30pm CST.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --68.60.67.149 (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The news confrence ended about an hour ago, and they said there is no plan to extend the mission by one day. They have not ruled it out, but said that it is unlikely unless some huge problem pops up and requires them to stay.--Navy blue84 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! --68.60.67.149 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's extended now.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it on the NASA website. They are saying a landing time of 1:18 PM on November 30. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why erase longest mission?[edit]

The longest mission by the Endeavour was erased, why? This mission is getting into the 16th day soon and if I counted right only 3 missions has ever into 16 days, only one 17 days? Puzzled —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmcfire (talkcontribs)

Yes, this will now be Endeavour's longest mission, eclipsing the last (STS-123) by about two hours.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I also heard on NasaTV that, this was the flight with the longest period of "open hatches" (not docked time) between a shuttle and the ISS. If we can find a source for that as well, might be interesting. --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I believe it was STS-124(maybe 123) that has the longest docked and hatches open time. STS-126 was shy of that by 4hrs. Also there have been many 16day missions, this one was 3.5hrs shy of 16 whole days.\--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

DJ is correct, this mission had the new record of "hatches open joint operations" time according to NASA. But it was not the longest docked time which I believe was 123. This article mentions the former: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/081130-sts126-landed.html What this means, as I understand it, is the hatches were open longer on this flight but docked longer on 123; meaning after they closed the hatches (or before they opened them in the beginning) they had a longer waiting period. --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

tool bag[edit]

what about the lost tool bag that someone droped during this mission?64.253.114.85 (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It's there. See the narrative and image in the flight day 5 section. It's called a "lock bag" and in this case it held tools. Theflyer (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on STS-126. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on STS-126. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on STS-126. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)