Talk:STS-127/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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.

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

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. Dr. Robert L. Park, argued that very little scientific research was convincingly planned for the ISS in the first place. Dr. Jeff Foust argued that the ISS requires too much maintenance, especially by risky, expensive EVAs. The Astronomical Society of the Pacific has mentioned that its orbit is rather highly inclined, which makes US launches more expensive. 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)

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)

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)

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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reworded. Ariel♥Gold 03:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting. So it would seem to me that the four people on the above list who did not reach 62 miles (nautical statute, 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)

I've found six candidates:

• Robert M. White
• Bill Dana
• John B. McKay
• Robert Rushworth
• Pete Knight
• Mike Adams

Can you check. --GW… 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Researched above for GW

• Robert M. White - X-15 pilot, no spaceflights - highest X-15 flight was 59.6 miles above the earth. Should be removed from list
• Bill Dana - Disambig page - William H. Dana - X-15 pilot no spaceflights - peak X-15 altitude of 59 miles - Should be removed from list
• John B. McKay - X-15 pilot, no spaceflights - peak X-15 altitude of 295,600 - Should be removed from list
• Robert Rushworth - X-15 pilot, no spaceflights - peak X-15 altitude of 285,000 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 - 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 - 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 (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)

According to NASA:

• "In the 1960's, the United States Department of Defense awarded the rating of astronaut to military and civilian pilots who flew aircraft higher than 50 miles (80 kilometers)."
• "On June 21, 2004, the American test pilot Michael Melvill became the first astronaut to be launched into space by a private company. Melvill piloted a rocket called SpaceShipOne, which was built and operated by Scaled Composites of Mojave, California. The craft carried Melvill more than 62 miles (100 kilometers) above Earth on a brief suborbital flight. "

From this information, I would say the Astronaut Badge article is incorrect (I corrected it), and while in the 60s, the DoD may have considered 50 miles to be a spaceflight, NASA does not. Ariel♥Gold 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So Robert Michael White is an USAF Astronaut who flew the X1-15 and earned an Astronaut Badge (per his article), but he didn't travel in space? Rillian (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Technically it was considered space at the time due to an alternative definition of space which was only used in the United States, and which is no longer seriously used by any major spaceflight organisation. I would suggest removing them from the list, but including their names in the lead, with a comment such as "Michael James Adams, William H. Dana, William J. Knight, John B. McKay, Robert Rushworth and Robert M. White flew X-15 missions above 80 kilometres (50 mi), which were considered to be spaceflights at the time by the United States Air Force, and the six men were awarded astronaut wings. They did not reach the 100-kilometre (62 mi) altitude which has become the internationally accepted edge of space, and are not included in this list". And thanks for looking that up, Ariel. --GW… 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Contingency mission for STS 125

Originally, Endeavour was to be used as the rescue shuttle to bring back the astronauts safely, in case if Atlantis got stranded in space. However, now that Endeavour's launch had been postponed 2 times due to technical problems, how realistic/practical it would have been to launch Endeavour almost immediately to save the lives of the astronauts, if such a dramatic situation took place during the last STS 125 Atlantis mission?

Kurun (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a moot point. Simply saying that because there have been 2 scrubs now, does not mean there would have been a problem if STS-400 was needed. They are sure it is repeated mate/demate cycles that caused the problems in March and now. Don't forget STS-119's tank was a refurbished tank that had been out at the pad and all ready to go before roll back and STS-127 was at pad B mated and all ready to go. This is really a none issue.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

A scrub for weather isnt unusual (as was the case with the 4th launch attempt. But the first 2 scrubs for leaks during tanking are unsual as is 7/11's scrub for additional checks due to direct lightning hits the previous night.--RadioFan (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's also some confusion about what constitutes a "scrub". My understanding is that a "scrub" occurs once they've started filling up the fuel tank and a launch does not occur. So the first to "attempts" in June were both "scrubs" as the cancellation occurred during fueling, but the postponement on July 11th is not considered a "scrub" because it was called off before fueling began. The last two attempts on July 12th and July 13th are scrubs as fueling had completed when the attempt was called off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.225.26 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Schedule Summary

Flight Day 1

• Launch • Payload Bay Door Opening • Ku-Band Antenna Deployment • Shuttle Robotic Arm Activation • Umbilical Well and Handheld External Tank Photo and TV Downlink

Flight Day 2

• Endeavour Thermal Protection System Survey with Shuttle Robotic Arm/Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS) • Extravehicular Mobility Unit Checkout • Centerline Camera Installation • Orbiter Docking System Ring Extension • Orbital Maneuvering System Pod Survey • Rendezvous Tools Checkout

Flight Day 3

• Rendezvous with the International Space Station • Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver Photography of Endeavour’s Thermal Protection System by the Expedition 20 Crew • Docking to Harmony/Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 • Hatch Opening and Welcoming • Kopra and Wakata exchange Soyuz seatliners; Kopra joins Expedition 20, Wakata joins the STS-127 crew • U.S. spacesuit transfer from Endeavour to space station • Canadarm2 and Kibo robotic arm positioning for Spacewalk 1 • Spacewalk 1 Procedure Review • Spacewalk 1 Campout by Wolf and Kopra

Flight Day 4

• Shuttle Robotic Arm Grapple and Unberth of Japanese Exposed Facility • Shuttle Robotic Arm Handoff of Japanese Exposed Facility to Canadarm2 • Canadarm2 installation of Japanese Exposed Facility to Kibo • Spacewalk 1 by Wolf and Kopra (Japanese Exposed Facility Berthing, Port 3 Nadir Unpressurized Cargo Carrier Attach System (UCCASS) Deploy, Starboard 3 Zenith Outboard Payload Attachment System (PAS) Deploy)

Flight Day 5

• Focused Inspection of Endeavour’s Thermal Protection System, if required • Shuttle Robotic Arm grapple of the Integrated Cargo Carrier-Vertical Light Deploy (ICC-VLD) and handoff to Canadarm2 for installation on the Payload Orbital Replacement Unit Accommodation (POA) • Spacewalk 2 Procedure Review • Spacewalk 2 Campout by Wolf and Marshburn

Flight Day 6

• Spacewalk 2 by Wolf and Marshburn (Transfer of critical station spare components from ICC-VLD to External Stowage Platform-3, installation of Japanese Experiment Facility forward camera)

Flight Day 7

• Shuttle Robotic Arm grapple, unberth and handoff of Japanese Logistics Module- Exposed Section to Canadarm2 • Canadarm2 installation of Japanese Exposed Section on Japanese Exposed Facility • Canadarm2 removal of ICC-VLD from POA and Mobile Transporter move to different worksite • Spacewalk 3 Procedure Review • Spacewalk 3 Campout by Wolf and Cassidy

Flight Day 8

• Spacewalk 3 by Wolf and Cassidy (Replacement of four out of six batteries in the Port 6 truss integrated electronics assembly)

Flight Day 9

• Kibo robotic arm transfer of three Japanese science payloads (Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image (MAXI), Space Environment Data Acquisition equipment – Attached Payload, or SEDA-AP and Interorbit Communication System – Exposed Facility, or ICS-EF) from the Japanese Exposed Section to the Japanese Exposed Facility • Spacewalk 4 Procedure Review • Spacewalk 4 Campout by Cassidy and Marshburn

Flight Day 10

• Spacewalk 4 by Cassidy and Marshburn (Replacement of the final pair of batteries in the Port 6 truss integrated electronics assembly, installation of the Japanese Experiment Facility aft camera) • Canadarm2 grapple and handoff of the ICC-VLD to the Shuttle robotic arm for berthing in Endeavour’s payload bay

Flight Day 11

• Crew Off Duty Day

Flight Day 12

• Canadarm2 grapple and handoff of Japanese Exposed Section to Shuttle robotic arm for berthing in Endeavour’s payload bay • Transfer of equipment and payloads from Endeavour to space station • Joint Crew News Conference • Spacewalk 5 Procedure Review • Spacewalk 5 Campout by Cassidy and Marshburn

Flight Day 13

• Spacewalk 5 by Cassidy and Marshburn (Zenith 1 Patch Panel reconfiguration, Starboard 3 nadir outboard and inboard PAS deployment, Starboard 3 wireless camera equipment installation, Dextre manipulator insulation removal)

Flight Day 14

• Canadarm2 unberth of OBSS and handoff to Shuttle robotic arm • Rendezvous tools checkout • Final Farewells and hatch closure

Flight Day 15

• Endeavour undocking from ISS • Flyaround of ISS and final separation • Late inspection of Endeavour’s thermal protection system with the OBSS

Flight Day 16

• Flight Control System Checkout • Reaction Control System hot-fire test • DRAGONSAT and ANDE-2 payload deployments • Crew Deorbit Briefing • Cabin Stowage • Recumbent Seat Setup for Wakata

Flight Day 17

• Deorbit preparations • Payload Bay Door closing • Deorbit burn • KSC Landing

• • Summary from NASA Press Kit for a checklist of each Flight Day activities.LanceBarber (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wake up call confusion

OK I can understand how people are confused. But changing the wake up call without real reason is stupid. The wake up call for flight day 14 was Proud to Be an American, not God Bless the USA. If you want proof then go here and see for yourselves.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I've changed the page to reflect this. The problem is that the song's name is actually "God Bless the USA"; NASA's website is simply wrong. Nevertheless, we reflect what they report, so we link to "God Bless the USA", but display "Proud to Be an American". No big deal. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

At the time, there was no source, it was a redlink, and it was obvious from the other articles what the real title of the song was and so it had looked like an accident, so it was a strong candidate for WP: Be Bold. Now that there is a source though, it seems that the other Wikipedia policy of what was reported rather than fact applies. Just keep the blue link. Jon (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

DRAGONSAT and ANDE-2 payload deployments

does anybody know when the deployment of the two piggyback satelites will be deployed tomorow?Nrpf22pr (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

nevermind i found the information ill write it for you if you guys need it:

  * Dragonsat deployment is schedueled for 7:33am central time
  * ANDE-2 deployment is schedueled for 12:32pm central time  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrpf22pr (talk • contribs) 02:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 

same underpants worn

As part of a scientific experiment, one crew member did not change underpants or wash them for 1 month and did not develop body odor. The underpants were of a special design. This is no joke. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8177743.stm Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not related to STS-127. Therfore I moved it to the Expedition 20 article where it should be.--Navy blue84 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Navy, you got to it just before I was about to. Very interesting experiment, but yes, only related to Expedition 20, not STS-127. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)