Talk:STS-115/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

Build up

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

question

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Not necessarily mission STS 115 should follow STS 114. The mission designations are given in the order in which they are planned, but depending on circumstances, a mission might be delayed (or brought up earlier in the launch schedulle), thus changing the orders in which the "numbers" launch. Quase 04:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When the Return to Flight plan was developed, it became clear that they'd need two flights to get back on the road, not just one - they were wanting to try out all sorts of on-orbit inspection techniques, and they simply couldn't fit them into the STS-114 schedule without crippling that mission. So they created a second "test" mission. This was numbered -121 because the first free number was 121; missions 114 through 120 were firmly planned and changing the documentation would have been confusing. Shimgray | talk | 10:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Night launch

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

BBC news reported that this will be a day launch. After the results of tests on the Shuttle have been determined, a desision will be taken over whether subsequent missions could be night launched. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 12:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

William Harwood at CBS News has a table of possible launch windows and all of them are daytime launches. You can find them all here: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/115/115windows.html. Palebluedots | talk | 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Related pages needing updates

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Minor issues

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

The picture of the Solar arrays titled: "A solar array on the P4 truss fully deployed on Day 6" Is actually of an array on the P6 Truss because you can see the P1 Truss parallelling it below. If it was the P4 Solar array it would appear perpendicular to the P1 Truss. http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-115/html/s115e05999.html Points to the actual P4 Truss deployed.

Day 4 spacewalk

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is in progress now if anyone's interested on NASA TV Feed. As far as I can tell Heidemarie_M._Stefanyshyn-Piper is torquing various bolts on the truss. CAPCOM is telling both astronauts they are well ahead of schdeule and may take a break. -Wikianon 13:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Heidemarie is between the P3 and P4 solar alpha rotary joint (allows new panels to articulate), and the next task is to install the installation covers over the drive locking assemblies. Tanner was reconfiguring some cables from one location to another. That's the primary power distribution. About an hour ahead of schedule. -Wikianon 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been removing most exact times from the article because i don't think they are neccessarily that important, and they somewhat disrupt the flow of the text.. exceptions i'd making are spacewalks, docking/undocking, and launch/landing. Nevertheless, i think a timeline could be useful.. a big list of things like

01:10 crew wakes up
...
06:45 first solar array began deployment
07:49 first solar array halted at 49%
...
14:26 crew sleeps

i know the times are way off, but you get the point. perhaps it could go on a separate page, like Timeline of STS-115. Mlm42 13:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Vostok 1 has something similar and has been held up as a good example for WikiPedia:WikiProject Space missions in the past. I think it works pretty well to give the detail. I agree that probably the text without the times is of most interest to most readers, and that having the timeline separated somehow, but available, is a good idea.

--3Idiot 15:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a pretty complete schedule here, but i don't know how closely the actual timeline fits this schedule.. Mlm42 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

'Use of the two Soyuz lifeboats?'

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Does anyone have a source for this? It seems highly unlikely that NASA would allow the use of the Soyuz for crew return leaving 3 crew on board the ISS (Current docked to the ISS are two Soyuz TMAs and 1 Progrees IIRC). I didn't hear it at the MMT Briefing. Any further comments or shall I pull that line? --Pvt Parts 21:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With correction to myself the Progress is no longer at the station.--Pvt Parts 21:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardize on one time format

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments10 people in discussion

I noticed that this article switches between EDT and CDT (someone also used EDS but I don't think it is correct). The article should use one format only. Is there a precedent for previous space shuttle articles? Atrian 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about precedent, but the fine folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions have some guidelines that are under discussion right now. I'm favoring UTC for things that don't really have a "local" time (like spacewalks and such). I think "local" time is probably ok for launches, landings, press briefings, and the like, but we should include UTC offset information.
3Idiot 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also in favour of using UTC when possible. Mlm42 19:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Support use of UTC/GMT for events without local time. Also, I suggest that it is mentioned in parenthesis when event occurs in local time to allow comparisons between times. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, WP:BOLD and all...I added/changed to UTC. There's still the issue of whether we should use 12 or 24 hour time format for local time. I didn't change what was there, but used 24 hour UTC.
3Idiot 20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA has always used the timezone at the location of the Flight Control location. For Shuttle flights, that's CST/CDT Houston, TX (but EST/EDT Florida for launches). But the ISS Flight Control in Russia runs on Moscow time, so you'll probably see some references to that time standard, too. While UTC is useful, NASA has never used it. Srain 20:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Space is international, UTC/GMT is international. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but this particular mission is being run by NASA. Times in their documents and broadcasts will be referenced per their internal standards. I would propose a double listing which listed the mission time (CDT or whatever) followed by a clarification in UTC. Most of the current article has been formatted with double times. Srain 21:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but NASA seems to be using mixed EDT [1] and CDT [2]. (Except maybe this [3], which claims EST...that's probably a mistake.) I propse we don't get into an edit war over timezone until the appropriate Wikiproject team has a chance to discuss a standard. (Which is also saying that I propose we take this discussion to that project's discussion page. If we're the ones needing it discussed...)
3Idiot 22:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have changed the time zones to CDT and UTC for the flight days - seems to me like unnecessary baggage - do we really need two time zones? I'd settle on either the NASA zone of EDT or GMT, but that's just me. Coldstream 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd look back through the logs and see what previous mission articles use...no real help there. Some use UTC throughout (STS-110). Some use a mix of local times and local times translated to EDT (STS-51-G).
We now have EDT, CDT, UTC and GMT in the article. (Upon landing, will we also have PDT?)
So it looks like we really do need to come to a consensus and do some cleanup. Let's take this discussion to the broader venue where more editors can benefit and comment.
3Idiot 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, well the featured article Apollo 8 seems to use UTC, except for once when it states the launch time within the text of the article.. but in the info box the launch time is UTC, as is the case for all the other apollo missions that i checked. one thing that article also made me realise is that we could probably afford to remove many of these times completely, since exact times may not be needed in the text.. without them it would make it look a lot nicer. and if an exact timeline is desired, then do that separately. so i'd be in favour of going with UTC as a general rule, and possibly local time for launch and landings could be an occassional exception. Mlm42 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You're reading my mind. I think there's still some cleanup that can be done once this mission is not a current event. (In 2 years, how much will it matter what time assembly of the truss started on flight day 4?)

--3Idiot 16:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The official time used for International Space Station operations is GMT using a 24 hour clock. That is what NASA uses in the Mission Control Center and to discuss planning with the International Partners. The official time used for the Space Shuttle Program is Mission Elapsed Time which starts at launch (with reference to GMT time as well). NASA only uses Eastern Time or Central Time for Public Affairs communication to the media. BuffaloChip97 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that the orbital location display at MCC Houston shows the time format GMT:DDD:hh:mm on the big screen --Pvt Parts 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that this [4] is certified official, but it looks like maybe NASA actually uses UTC which some people (understandably, but erroneously) call GMT.

--3Idiot 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We could really throw a spanner in the works and use the xx:xxZ ZULU shorthand ;-) --82.36.171.119 22:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Have some sympathy for the end user of the encyclopedia. If source references use EDT or CST or whatever, then that time would be the least confusing time to use in the Wikipedia article. Recalculating times to UTC or GMT would indicate a biased viewpoint that favors those times over the times reported by the agency; it won't help someone trying to learn something about space flight to be presented with a different set of dates and times for each event.

NASA reports times based on where the events were primarily occured. A launch from KSC is reported in US Eastern Time. On-orbit events (everything after hand-over of control from KSC to Houston at T+7 seconds) for manned space flight are usually in Houston time, US Central. UTC and MET are displayed on the screens in mission control but for internal coordination, we use US Central Time for everything because that's the time our brains are synched to.

To answer the question about whether to use PDT for landing: Yes, if the Shuttle lands in the Pacific Time Zone while daylight-saving time is effect, use PDT. That's consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Syle. -- Greg 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Remote fly-back cable

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can anyone remember what they call the 8.5m installable cable between the avionics bay and the flight deck for automated fly-back? I know it's been in use since STS-121 and it is included on that page in wikipedia but I can't find a good NASA link for it. Note that the CSCS document is outdated by the STS-121 procedures. --Pvt Parts 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be referenced a lot of places, but not named. Thanks for fixing my edit referencing the CSCS document. You're right...that thing is clearly out of date upon further inspection.

Here's to hoping that in a day or so we can replace all of the references to a contingency plan with a link to STS-3xx and celebrate an uneventful landing. (PS: I encourage everyone to go participate in the discussion going on over there about how to handle articles about rescue missions in general.)

--3Idiot 22:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called the Remote Control Orbiter (RCO) In-flight maintenance (IFM) cable. I am debating on whether to put this info into an article or create a seperate one. I have some documents, pictures, and diagrams that could go a long way towards explaining exactly how it works. The details aren't in the news, but NASA does acknowledge its existance. July 29, 2006 NPR article -> Emergency Rescue Plans in Place for Astronauts Cjosefy 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Added a section on this to the STS-3xx page. Cjosefy 00:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great, I've added a link to that from the article here. --Pvt Parts 11:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Solo?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"A solo cello performance by Mission Specialist Daniel Burbank’s children. " A solo is performed by one person - whats the correct version? Rich Farmbrough, 10:47 20 September 2006 (GMT).

NASA calls it a "solo performance". Some news websites call it a "performnace by [his] kids." Listen to the Audio at STS-115 Wakeup Calls. Are there two instruments in there, or is it one? Someone more familiar with cello music can answer that. Cjosefy 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

image of object

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

just to be clear, i reverted changing the image to a nice high-res photo of what looks like a bag of some kind, that was also recently spotted.. but the piece of debris they seemed most worried about was seen in the low-res video.. you can barely make it out.. in fact for most of the video i couldn't see it at all. anyway, it's the video one that they were afraid was part of the heat shield. Mlm42 14:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

STS-300 section

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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

I personally think that STS-300 is a bit irrelevent too, although it probably shouldn't be removed unless others also think that it should be removed. I will put the STS-301 crew on the page. DarthVad e r 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A link to STS-301 is relevant, and that is already in the article. The STS-300 that would have rescued STS-121 is a modified version of STS-115. In essence it IS STS-115. I think it is important to make this fact clear so that people understand the relationship between the two. STS-115 is the big, grand mission, but it STS-121 would have had a problem, all work on STS-115 would have changed into work on STS-300. Cjosefy 14:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of mentioning both STS-300 and STS-301 and their relationship to STS-115, but briefly. I think STS-3xx is the place to do the detailed explanation of how all the missions relate, what crew modifications would be made, etc.

There is some discussion going on over at Talk:STS-3xx about what form exactly that article should take. I think it's eventually going to be a good article explaining the relationships better than duplicated text spread across all the STS-1xx articles.

--3Idiot 18:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Article Lifetime

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just to start off the discussion regarding what's going to happen to this article - obviously in its current guise it's not suitable as an encyclopaedic entry, so i'll get started on rewriting it to Wikiproject Space Missions specifications. I'm just wondering how long we're going to keep the article as it is, in full detail - a week, a month, or right up until STS-116? I'd appreciate everyone's comments on the issue... Colds7ream 16:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

ever. Yao Ziyuan 16:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

what exactly do you think needs changing? do you think it's too long? STS-121 looks pretty similar to this one.. i don't see the need for a rewrite; did i miss something in Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions? Mlm42 17:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's like several have said before - in one, two years'time, are the exact timings going to matter? I was just thinking of condensing it a little - but if everyone thinks it's OK as it is, fine by me. Colds7ream 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see:

The addition of a detailed timeline section to move most of the times in the body to
Some citation work...early in the article, every second sentance has a citation; after day 7, not much is cited at all
STS-300/STS-301 references cleaned up, sorted out, and taken out of the summary
General summary cleanup: launch time is given, not landing; "Space Shuttle assembly mission" I think needs a little rewording, ...

...and some other general cleanup left to be done. I too think there's proabably some condensation that could take place. We used the article almost like a "latest news" repository while the mission was current. There are probably things that can be streamlined and improved (heck, some probably need expansion) now that we have time to breathe. I don't think we need a rewrite by any means, but we're always striving to improve, eh?

--3Idiot 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

agreed.. a separate timeline is good, but as for times that we do include in the text, i think launch, landing, and spacewalks should still be kept in the text.. it doesn't make it too cluttered. Mlm42 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems STS-115 had a lucky escape. "As the shuttle flew upside-down and backward over the Indian Ocean on its hour-long dive back to Earth, temperatures outside reached nearly 1,650 C (3,000F)". BBC News, 21 Sept 06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.84.253.241 (talk • contribs) .

To understand how the Shuttle reenters Earth, please see the visual representation here.[5] Cjosefy 14:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot. Irony + Atlantic Ocean do not mix. Graphic is nice though, even if the turns are a bit weak. 160.84.253.241 07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm thinking if we could move the timeline into a separate page... Big top 06:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Launch Debris Event

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Suspected Launch Debris Event

Short after STS-115 launch journalist James Oberg reported on Usenet a debris event near MET 48 seconds. It was on the NASA TV launch feed just before the "flag shot". Several others confirmed it. Oberg posted a link to a short wmv file from wich I captured two images. I copied them together in one image. By motion blur the debris object is visible as two bright short lines. The debris seems to come from near the top of the ET but the side opposite the orbiter. Therefore it was never any danger to hit the orbiter. But after the PAL and bipod ramp this seems a new source of debris not fixed yet. The event was near max Q and the debris seems larger then the Columbia piece. -- Len Morno 10:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about this. Can you cite a source for this? Some article on Usenet does not seem to be reliable enough. Is Mr. Oberg at least reputable in the science journalism community? Unless you can state a reliable source, it seems to me as a original research . --Jan.Smolik 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My source is this and I used the NASA wmv linked there too. It is from the offical TV feed and all I did was the screenshot and enhancement. The whole feed is linked in the article. Look around 48 seconds after launch. Btw, I misread Oberg to 43 sec and will fix it now to 48 sec.

Oberg often writes for MSNBC, USA Today and is a major US space journalist. He was as expert in several space related TV documentaries, specialy after Columbia. In the 1980s he worked in Shuttle Mission Control (MCC) at NASA JSC from STS-1 on. -- Len Morno 22:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

protection

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i protected STS-115 to prevent from being vandalized.

last time i saw the infobox and only a few words.

Jer10 95 05:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged timeline

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To standardize shuttle missions, (see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into this article, and the Timeline page should be deleted. I'll tag it and it can be discussed, but it has been orphaned since March 2007, and we're trying to standardize all the mission articles into the same format. See WikiProject Space missions. This article is still a bit long, and will need to be pruned, which I'm willing to do but if someone else has their heart set on it, have at it! :) ^Ariel♥Gold 00:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't so much a matter of pruning, but rather a question of how to sub-divide into multiple articles. (Unless you think some of the material doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all?) Having a distinct Timeline of STS-115 was one way to sub-divide, but maybe not the best.... Obviously you (at least) saw something wrong with that approach. Perhaps we can find a better one? (sdsds - talk) 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going off the format used in WikiProject Space missions, if you read through that, there's a list of completed projects. None of them have second or third pages directing them to the timeline. My guess is that it was created originally to add minute-by-minute activity as it went along during the mission, but once the mission is over, as it has been for nearly a year now, it can easily be merged into the main mission's article. Granted, it will need to be pruned, but it is easily sub-divided with the use of headers, and the table of contents. See the three missions listed for reference I listed initially.

Certainly, there must be a balance between too much information, and not enough. It is not that information doesn't "belong", it is that the Wikipedia Manual of Style is a guideline, and overly long, detailed articles are not always helpful. Sometimes, summary is better than detail. The purpose of "See also" sections, "External links" sections, and references provide that balance. This sub-page issue seems to have only happened with two missions, STS-115 and STS-121, which should also get merged. None of the missions previous to, or since those have had external timeline pages. If you have alternate ideas, or you feel the Wikipedia Project is wrong, feel free to let me know what your suggestions are, I'd be happy to hear them! :) ^Ariel♥Gold 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirection complete per AfD consensus. Edit history for Timeline of STS-115 can be found here.

Image:Sts-116-patch.png

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Sts-116-patch.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:STS-116 emblem.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Object

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Nowhere do i see anything mentioned about the second object in the article. So why are there two pictures of two different objects? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.185.104 (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There were lot of strange objects in this journey. As usual, official silence (wikipedia too). Real pitty.--83.46.56.217 (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What does co-orbital prove?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In reference to to edit summary by PvtParts... what or who is MMT?, and does the fact that object is co-orbital with shuttle really prove it's from the shuttle? Nope. For instance, another space vehicle happens to be approaching the area right now (Russian craft carrying some of the next ISS crew/components). It wouldn't be astonishing if its trajectory is basically the same as the shuttle's, so maybe something flew off *it*. Mighty unlikely, yes, but until we know what the object is we should really include possibility it didn't originate with shuttle. JDG 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The co-orbital path is as good as guaranteeing it came from Atlantis as it appeared moving co-axially along the same orbit ie: although it was apparently moving away from Atlantis, it was not changing in orientation (angle). This point was more or less made by the MMT and explicitly made by the Atlantis crew observing. --Pvt Parts 21:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify myself, there is nothing on the Soyuz-TMA (1000nm+ behind) or the ISS (200nm+ ahead) which could give an object enough delta-v to catch or pass Atlantis' current orbit at this time.

MMT is Mission Management Team. As to co-orbital, the Shuttle will have made a trajectory change immediately after undocking from the ISS, and the Soyuz will itself be in a subtly different trajectory; the odds of it coming from the fresh launch are pretty trivial. Orbits are big things, and co-orbital is hard to achieve by coincidence. Shimgray | talk | 19:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have years of ufo study. Its the same kind of object seen in Apollo missions, wtc colapse, etc... Clearly they hide facts again. When astronaut Shyn starts explaining the incident, she collapses twice(!) in front of the tv camera after landing. Remarcable fact ignored here too. Stop lying. Why not the truth? --83.46.56.217 (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Orbs formation

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It should be added the flashing lights that aborted the return. These 4 objects flash and change direction. Its a shame that astronauts and NASA keep silence or Never A Straight Answer. [6] . Kim for sure (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on STS-115. 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} 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on STS-115. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoday/blogs/spaceteam/2006/08/sts-115-astronauts-head-to-ksc.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080203224312/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com:80/news_space_thewritestuff/2006/08/atlantis_going_.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2006/08/atlantis_going_.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/31/space.shuttle.ap/index.html

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on STS-115. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar%2FLayout%2FArticle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155851411073
Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2006/08/atlantis_going_.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5qa43IOoy?url=https://history.nasa.gov/wakeup%20calls.pdf to https://history.nasa.gov/wakeup%20calls.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723042544/http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf to http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on STS-115. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on STS-115. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)