Talk:STS-116/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removal of STS-301 Section

I removed the STS-301 section as the information did not match NASA document [1]. Discussion of handling rescue missions is currently being debated on Talk:STS-300.

Once again I believe you are using aged information. See [2] section Contingency Shuttle Crew Support. The crew list for STS-301 is listed. It also says that it is a subset of the STS-116 crew. Cjosefy 01:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I modified the paper since Nicholas Patrick has replaced Christer Fuglesang on this one. The mission is called STS-301 and not 302. Hektor 06:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Related pages needing updates

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 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

image

the computer rendered image of the ISS after STS-116 is somewhat confusing, as one of the four solar arrays isn't present.. it makes it seem like they are going to fold it back in for this mission, but (as far as i know..) they aren't, and the array should be there. i'm assuming they didn't include it to get a clearer view of the station? Mlm42 09:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From the mission overview:

"..before any of the rewiring can be done, half of the solar array that's been providing the temporary electricity must be folded up to make room for the new solar arrays to rotate."

Neum 19:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

aah, touche.. cheers! Mlm42 07:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Year End Rollover

The current launch window is from 12/14-12/25. If the shuttle launched later into this window, there exists a potential year end rollover event where the computer systems change years (actually, it goes from 365:23:59:59 to 001:00:00:00). This hasn't happened before, and it will be interesting to see the kind of procedures put in place to deal with this issue. Cjosefy 14:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

They ought to be ashamed. I mean, come on, Y2K was 6 years ago. Unbelievable. FelineAvenger 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with Y2K, it's a YERO problem they've known about and understood for a long time and well before the Y2K "panic" of the late 90's. While the media may latch onto the issue as a potential problem b/c of it's humorous conotation, there has been / is / would be a plan in place if needed. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4709 clears it up nicely, as does several other links I found. Just FYI for ya'll...cheers.

Expedition 13

I have a problem with the statement "landing Expedition 13 crew Thomas Reiter. Indeed, formally, Reiter is now a member of Expedition 14, since the previous crew exchange with Soyuz. Hektor 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Another reason this format for the Crew section is bad.

Similarly, Williams will probably be part of 14 & 15.

I think the way to fix this is by introducing some text that briefly explains the crew exchange and points readers to the Expedition 14 and Expedition 15.

What we're runing into is the fact that not everything can be well presented in tables and lists. Sometimes prose is necessary. I'll try to work on some this weekend.

--3Idiot 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Countdown

Can we please get rid of the Countdown section? It adds nothing to the article and gets out of date as soon as you update it. Atrian 22:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

just 16 days untill launch.

Jer10 95 07:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

2 days to go! Get ready, folks - soon we'll be off again! Colds7ream 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cubesat > 1 kg?

In the payload section's table, it lists a few CubeSats with masses over 1 kg, but the article on CubeSats says "A CubeSat is a type of space research picosatellite...weighing no more than one kilogram..." - which is correct? —AySz88 \^-^ 05:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Damage at RCC?

STS-116 Wing Leading Edge Panel 19 to 22. Possible Damage. From NASA TV feed, enhanced by myself. -- Alots 17:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did you find that this is a possible damage? We need a source for that; what I've seen NASA said all checks were okay. ❝Sverdrup❞ 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The image caption makes it sound like OR. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Patch

The displayed patch does not match the list of astronauts which is provided. Hektor 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
it doesn't? Seragenn 19:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
it didn't in May 2006. Hektor 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy-wire vs. Guide wire

I think it's worth noting that although guy-wires are perfectly valid and appropriate structural members for masts similar to the solar arrays, the wires used on the ISS are, in fact, guide wires. Their purpose is not structural (in microgravity, the central truss structure is more than enough support), but guidance of the panels, keeping them in the plane of the structure. The problem is that they're not working very well. Srain 15:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NASA TELIVISION

NASA TV[3] is what I always turn to, to se space shuttle launches, NASA TV is broadcasted by sattilite reception from Cape Canaveral, FL to Radnor Channel 21 in Radnor/Wayne, PA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pfmiv (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

NASA's live feed is also available for those who have high-speed internet! It comes over quite nicely from: http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx (Opens the Windows Media Player)69.226.99.66 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I'm thinking of a separate timeline page beacuse the page could be too long... Big top 18:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine for now. → JARED ^(t) 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And can all times be done in UTC as well, it makes more sense for a international audience. Onco_p53 07:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, UTC makes most sense, since that is the time used onboard the shuttle and the ISS. For the launch and the landing time EST could be relevant also, but nothing else concerning the mission takes place in the eastern time zone. --Boivie 09:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mission Control Houston is in the US Central time zone and is somewhat concerned with the mission... =-) But seriously. Standard usage of UTC is in 24-hour time, not "AM/PM." Shown here, actual size--> Srain 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

See related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space_missions#Time_format_discussion, and good luck...
--3Idiot 17:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for UTC here. Not only is UTC the time format that is in use during spaceflight, but also the time that we as amateur radio operators use when referencing contacts, including contacts with the ISS... 69.226.99.66 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames / Callsigns

I'd like to add Curbeam's nickname / callsign "Beamer" to the crew list as this how he is referred to by the crew and mission control. There's also Mark "Roman" Polansky and William "Bill" Oefelein. Any suggestions both on if this is appropriate for the crew list and how it should be formatted.

There's a precedent for adding: (often referred to on radio as "xxxx") after the name. - see STS-114. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Taylor (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Contingency

I keep finding the contingency section out-of-place. I'd be inclined to A) move the contingency section to the end of the article or B) reduce it to a simple reference (maybe toward the beginning of the article) and catalog all the contingency flights in the separate article which already exists (STS-3xx). I haven't been bold because I wasn't sure if there was a template being followed which precluded my opinion. Srain 05:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I don't like the size and emphasis on the contingency "section." It would be much better to have a two-sentence summary of that information, with links to the article. I suspect the maintainer of the contingency info moved to a template for the sake of impeding those who would otherwise be bold. Heathhunnicutt 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Landing

The shuttle is sceduled for landing. There are three possible landing spots, in Florida, California, and New Mexico. There is a problem, because the weather conditions in Florida and California are not good for landing. The other site, in New Mexico, has good weather conditions, but hasn't been used in 25 years. If it lands in New Mexico, it may take as long as 2 months to get back to the Kenedy Space Centre, Possibly risking next October's flight. It has until Saturday to land before it runs out of fuel. There are 7 more chances for landing on Saturday. Why isn't in the article? If nessacary, I could provide a source. AstroHurricane001 18:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, it seems to be saying that the shuttle is currently preparing to land or has already landed. Currently it is 22 UTC. The article says it went through a de-orbit burn before 22 UTC, and says that it will land one hour and one minute after that. However, I don't think the shuttle lands that slowly, and the news seems to say it is sceduled for approxiamtely half an hour from now. Which is right? Is there an error in the article? Should it be fixed? AstroHurricane001 22:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not an error - I will attempt to explain this as simply as I can. - The Shuttle takes about 90 minutes to complete one orbit of the Earth. In order to come out of orbit, it has to fire its engines before it is even half an orbit away from the landing site. It begins re-entry over the Pacific, and then flys across Mexico and the South of the USA, which obviously takes time, and the Shuttle is braking during this. Also, it is a glider. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1000th Crew Member

I don't know where your getting the facts from, but STS-116 does not contain the 1000th crew member in space. In fact, less than 500 people have ever been above the 100km altitude zone as defined as space internationally, reguardless of whether or not it was orbital or suborbital. As I write this, I believe the exact number of people above 100km is near 460, give or take a few. There is a page on wikipedia listing all people in space, i suggest you look at it. The only reference here that 1000 people were in space was from a french website! Don't you think if it was true that the US would take a little more pride in it than the French who have little investment? Time to think a bit. Besides, almost 120 space shuttle launches have occured, with most carrying around 7 crew members. Even multiplying that you still get 840, far less than 1000. However, most crew aboard the space shuttle have been in space before, thus dropping the number significantly. The soyuz has a lot of launches, but not significant, nor were there many in the days of vostok. Also, the mercury, apollo and gemini programs didnt send many men in space and many of those who went up went several times. All im saying here is there is no way 1000 men have been in space as of right now and it shouldnt take a lot of common sense to figure this from the facts of history. Time to think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deltaforce5000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Looking at your numbers, could it be that this flight marks the 1,000th time a human has passed above the 100 km mark? I have no idea, mind you; I'm merely inquiring.--Miguel Cervantes 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly this statistic is a little outré, but technically 1000 people have flown into space. This has been accomplished by a total of 446 people, some of whom (obviously) have flown more than once. The statistics (in French, unfortunately) go on to say that of the 446 people, 44 were women. Of the total there have been 280 Americans, 99 Russians, and 64 of other nationalities. 168 have only done one mission and 158 have participated in extra-vehicular activity. So as long as the factoid is called 1000th crew member, I think it should stay. Atrian 21:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to come off as a jerk about it, but I didnt see anyother way 1,000 people could have been in space. However, your right, if you count individual missions by astronaut it is 1,000. Yea, it is kinda a little outré of a statistic, but nevertheless is interesting in perspective. Thats a lot of individual human cargo that has been propelled into space ~ 1,000 times... Deltaforce5000 00:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still a little awkward. And really, STS-116 is the 2,000 time a human has crossed the boundary (What goes up must come down). Sadly, however, I can't seem to think of any new wording for it. (Also, the Wikipedia article on STS-116 is probably going to mark my 1,000th edit, but that's not really important enough to put in the article now, is it? :) )--Miguel Cervantes 21:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that it's been changed to 1004. I think we should note that STS-116 carried the 1004th, 1003d, 1002d, 1001st, 1000th, 999th and 998th persons to orbit. The whole point of the section was to note the 1000th -- not the 1004th -- so I'm changing that part back. The reference was also updated, which is a good thing because Le Monde has recycled that page already. I like the notation on the Spaceflight Now page: tickets. It solves the up-and-down problem and puts the statistic in real-world terms. Srain 19:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement completely. If you look at the reference Spaceflight Now provided, the total number of tickets post TMA-9 was 1004. TMA-9 launched prior to STS-116. STS-116 flew tickets 1005 to 1011. A post-STS-116 reference page can be found here: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts116/fdf/demonext.html --Collectspace 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So many images!

Do we really need all those images in the timeline? I can understand the shuttle lifting off, one or two spacewalks, and one of the shuttle (or a part of the shuttle). But that section is turning into a picture book. What if we put a link to STS-116 at the start of the section. For further pictures of the mission, go to STS-116. There would be a link there, but I don't feel like remembering how to link to sister projects. Anyways, any opinions? Also, how did I end up deleting this? --Miguel Cervantes 01:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are too many images. Pics with no mention in the text shouldn't be included. But I don't suggest removing anything yet. Let's wait till the mission is over and sort the images out to pick the best and most relevant. ... The link to Wikimedia Commons is already at the bottom in the External links section. There are more (unused) pictures there. --PFHLai 01:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, the images are fine. They do a good job in showing the mission as it happened and as news-hacks say images can say more than 1000 words. I particularly like the image of the Spacewalk over New Zealand, simply stunning! Also I have dial-up and the page loads pretty quick. Alisdair37 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, not every pic is that useful. IMO, Image:STS-116 flight deck.jpg, Image:1 Min to MECO - STS-116.JPG and Image:STS-116 rocket boosters (NASA KSC-06PD-2794).jpg don't add much to the article. But I guess I'll leave them where they are for the time being. --PFHLai 08:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PAPIs vs. Xenon spotlights

The article mentions that the PAPIs were used even though the landing wasn't an official night landing. PAPIs are used for every landing to determine the correct final glidepath angle for landing. The Xenon spotlights were turned on to illuminate the runway - that's probably what the author meant to say. 69.91.32.91 14:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Which current box should be used

Personally I think 2 is adequate at all times, but there's little harm in 1 during flight. I think No.3 , which has just been created is badly phrased - "as time goes by", an the image extends outside the box on my browser. Richard Taylor 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I like 2 but can see where 1 might be ok too. 3 is unnecessary.

--3Idiot 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: 3 has been deleted per WP:TFD. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

.

I have changed the templates to use the lt| tag to avoid the templates adding this page to various categories. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Debris hits from SRB

Just found this: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4974

Is it worth adding it to the article? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Crew notes

I am wondering, is it really that interesting to get information about what the crew might have been ? Hektor 19:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Official European names

The STS missions with european participants are often (always) named, the article should mention this name somewhere. For this mission, named Celcius, see http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Celsius/index.html. --Patrik1972 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on STS-116. 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on STS-116. 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.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)