Talk:STS-120/Archive 1

Archive 1

Launch date

Where does the launch day of Oct 23 at 11:40 AM come from? NASA still has Oct 20. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts120/index.html

Shows as Launch Target: Oct. 23, 2007 for me. Perhaps it was just not updated when you checked, but as of Aug 23, that's the tentative launch date. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization of space shuttle

I'd like to just clear up the common problem of capitalization of the term "space shuttle". In and of itself, the term is not a proper noun, and should not be capitalized. It is a noun just the same as "orbiter" or "vehicle". When it is used in conjunction with the name of a specific orbiter, such as "Space Shuttle Atlantis", then it becomes a proper noun, and should be capitalized. Refer to the main page of the shuttle program, here and look at the "NASA Fact" box on the left. Often it has a fact about the shuttle, and as today's says: "The shuttle's main engines create a combined maximum thrust of more than 1.2 million pounds." If it had said "Space Shuttle Atlantis creates a combined..." then it would be capitalized. This is the same as the International Space Station: When used as the proper name, it is capitalized, but when using the term "station" in reference to it, it is not. I've gone ahead and made the term uncapitalized, unless it is a proper noun, but just so there is not an edit war, thought I would explain to people here. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Time zone formatting

Please see the discussion at Project Space Missions for details regarding time zone formatting. Overview:

• Times in the infobox should be in 24-hour UTC/GMT.
• Detailed timeline section should be in 24-hour GMT with 24-hour local time added parenthetically for ground-referenced events (takeoff, landing, etc).
• Specific times should be used in the body of an article only when notable. When they do appear, specific times in the body of an article should be in 24-hour local time with 24-hour UTC time added parenthetically as indicated by the Manual of Style.

Basically, when an event occurs on the ground, the local time should be listed, and if appropriate, the UTC time in parenthesis. When times occur for events in space, GMT should be used, and local time where appropriate. For instance, if a spacewalk starts at 3am GMT, then it would be appropriate to list the day and time local, because the ending time will be the next day local time.

I've noticed a lot of reverting going on with the time of launch format, so hopefully this can help clear things up. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Landing Door leak

Leak tests fail on Discovery delaying rollover

Discovery's Right Main Landing Gear strut underwent further leak testing on Friday evening, following inspections that noted it was dripping hydraulic fluid on Friday. Engineers were unable to fix the problem to allow an on-time rollover for the orbiter ahead of STS-120. Rollover will be delayed a day or two, pending repairs. Article: STS-120/Discovery status - UPDATED

The leak was observed by engineers inside OPF-3 (Orbiter Processing Facility) - which immediately underwent troubleshooting. Early indications on processing reports noted that it would not be a constraint to rollover.

'Orbiter jackdown/weight/CG (Center of Gravity) completed yesterday (Thursday); OTS (Orbiter Transporter System) Operations scheduled for today,' noted Friday's processing report.

'Picked up (problem), RMLG (Right Main Landing Gear) strut has higher than acceptable leak rate (allowed 1 drip/hour, currently seeing 1 drip every 20 seconds).

'Gear was cycled five times last night with the following results: 1st cycle no drips. 2nd cycle 1 drip. 3rd cycle 5 drips. 4th cycle no drips. 5th cycle 1 drip. Strut is now extended with diaper installed. This issue may delay transporter operations, but should be no threat to rollover.'

However, further testing showed the leak was unacceptable, requiring repairs. This will carried out on Monday or Tuesday, leading to a slight delay to the rollover date, possibly by a couple of days.

'All work for OV 103 (Discovery) has been cancelled due to main landing gear seal work,' noted information on Saturday. 'Repair estimated Tuesday or Wednesday.'

The launch date will not be affected as there is plenty of remaining contingency in the current STS-120 flow, which is ultimately targeting a launch to the International Space Station (ISS) in a launch window that opens on October 23.

'Payload bay doors closed in OPF. Did final power down at end of first shift. Strong backs removed from payload bay doors. Crew module hatch closed,' summarized the latest Shuttle Stand-up Integration report.--JeremyWheat 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Delay of Rollover and possibly the launch date

A delay of rollover of shuttle Discovery has come up due to a leak in the right main gear landing door. Now that engineers are going to have to come in and fix the problem a delay has occured. With the delay of the rollover, rollout will also be delayed. Yes, the launch will be delayed by a couple of days. Discovery can still launch within the October window, but the window closes in the mid of November. JeremyWheat 15:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! ~*Cry*~ lol. (Ariel crosses her fingers). We can update the article once a confirmed date of rollout and launch is given, that would probably be best, what do you think Jeremy?. ^Ariel♥Gold 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea I think that we can update the main article when they start fixing the problem and new rollover and rollout dates and launch dates are confirmed. Do you think that we need to update the article with the repair and say that there is a repair needed? 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)JeremyWheat

2nd'ed Officially it's launch is still the 23rd, it's not delayed yet, it's just very unlikely that it will launch on schedule now. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: There has been some talk on some other websites that they are still going to try and launch around the 23rd. People are saying that the launch could slip to the 26th. JeremyWheat 02:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they're going to shave some time off of it, but it will probably still not launch on the 23rd. But we're not looking at a huge delay, a couple days at most is what it sounds like on L2. We will be best to wait until the official dates are announced, and I think that really the whole processing section would be best to get trimmed, just to highlight the foam changes on the ET, and this newest issue. I don't think it matters (in historical encyclopedic terms) when it moved from OPF to VAB etc., thoughts?^Ariel♥Gold 07:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Agreed. only exceptional events in processing are really important in these articles. Which reminds me though, that it might be cool to have a "Launching the Space Shuttle"-page. Cause it really is an exceptional piece of equipment, and to document the proces in general over all those 130 or so launches would be interesting in itself. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh.... That's just an awesome idea, the main challenge would be to put it into simple, "layman's" terms, all the tech stuff that you, I, (and most of us space enthusiasts) understand, but your average reader doesn't. This is definitely something worth thinking about. I have the "Bible" of the shuttle here, Jenkins' Space Shuttle, and it is used widely by NASA as being the most thorough non-NASA publication about the history and technical specifications of the shuttle. (Which would make another awesome article, have you ever seen all the various prototypes? Wild stuff, lol). Let's think about doing this. If you want to create a subpage in your userspace with the project on it, I'd be up for helping out! (Probably should start it that way, and move it once it is fleshed out some if we do it) I bet Sdsds and Jeremy would probably help too, and maybe Cape Canaveral too. Let me know if you decide to start it, just yell at me on my talk page and I'll come help, I can add stuff from the Jenkins book, find articles, sources, little stuff like that. ^Ariel♥Gold 08:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

&t==Processing section== ArialGold do you want to slim the processing article on the main page, and just put the repairs and new possible dates in the article?JeremyWheat 14:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, since TheDJ agrees, probably would be best, as we'll have more to add once rollout is done I'm sure. Let me go take a look at it and see what can be trimmed. <sup;Ariel♥Gold 15:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks great now and I would keep it that way until the repairs are done and new dates are given for rollover and rollout.JeremyWheat 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and yeah I think that's best. I mean, really in 10 years it won't matter when it even rolled out to the pad, lol. But I did want to mention the tank repair, and of course, the reason for delay. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed! Hee hee. ^Ariel♥Gold 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that we need to take out the part about Harmony in the article? I don't think it is really worth mentioning. I put it into the article and it is fine with me if you take it out.JeremyWheat 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I actually think that it needs to be expanded. This mission is taking up the first EU component, basically, and Node2 deserves a good mention. I'm working on that actually right now, to expand the information about what makes this mission so special. Granted, it could be moved from the processing section, you're probably right that knowing when it was closed out is sort of not relevant, but we can leave it in for now, it doesn't hurt the article any. (Or, feel free to take it out if you'd like to, be bold!, hee hee ^Ariel♥Gold 10:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Node 2 is a US element, that was built by an Italian company. Not a EU component. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

lol sorry, that's just me lumping Italy into Europe, and my sleepy not-awake yet reply when I was actually thinking about the Columbus module. ~*Smacks head*~. Node 2 connects US, European and Japanese labs (or will connect), and is a utility hub, giving power, water, etc., to life support systems throughout the ISS. Resources will be drawn from the truss and US labs to distribute to Columbus and JEM. But, I still think it is worth writing a section about, but I think it best to wait for the press kit to be able to cite it and get facts straight. But yeah should be removed from processing I guess, and yes I was wrong, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL I knew I wasn't crazy when I thought it was connected to the ESA (what I called by mis-type, EU): "In an agreement between NASA and the European Space Agency, Italian company Alcatel Alenia Space, based in Rome, built Harmony at its facility in Turin, Italy." So yeah it isn't an "ESA (EU) module", but I knew I'd read that ESA was involved. Hee hee ^Ariel♥Gold 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Payload section

Okay I moved the Harmony information into its own sub-section, and sourced with the mission overview fact page explaining what Harmony is. We can write more on that once press kit is out, or if anyone wants to add. It should not be overly weighted, but as it is the primary payload, and an integral part of the ISS, it definitely deserves a section, but also we do have the article already Harmony Module. For purposes of the mission, info like total weight, size, etc. that is often given in Press Kit is helpful. If anyone wants to trim it or add/remove things, that's great, I just think it deserved its own sub-header to clarify it was the main payload. ^Ariel♥Gold 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great and with its new section we can add anything new that anyone thinks of to exapnd its section. JeremyWheat 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Repair Efforts to Discovery

Right now the repairs seem to be ahead of schedule. That's great news and I hope more good things happen with this repair. Lets keep our fingers crossed that the repairs remain to go smooth and that this won't cause too much of a delay. JeremyWheat 21:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm following the reports Chris is giving on L2. (I'm assuming that's where you're getting your info?) I've got my fingers and toes crossed lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The repair has been done and now the engineers are putting the landing gear and things back into place. Could possibly have a rollover of Discovery 9-24-07. Discovery could still launch on the 23rd, but there are no contigency days left. To launch on the 23rd everything from this point foward would have to go smooth with no problems. This is great news that the R&R happened quickly and we can still keep the launch date!JeremyWheat 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The repair is done and the leak tests are done and has passed. Rollover to the VAB is scheduled for September 23 and rollout is scheduled for September 30. The launch date is still October 23 and there is only one contengincy day left. Way to go to the Goodrich contracters who came in and did such a great effort fixing the problem. JeremyWheat 11:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon

I've removed the {{USA}} flag from the (American) NASA astronauts. Per Flag usage, flags are best used not to decorate, or to state the obvious, but to help clarify things. In this case, NASA is obviously American, and thus, unless otherwise specified, astronauts are assumed to be as well. When astronauts from other countries are on a mission, then I think it is appropriate to include the flag, as well as which space agency they are representing. Any objections to this? ^Ariel♥Gold 16:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Rollover

Discovery's rollover to the VAB happened on September 23. The rollover occured at 11:26 a.m. central time. She was in the VAB 26 minutes later. They are going to try and place Discovery in the sling and lift her vertical for mating tonight. With the late rollover they may decide to wait 24 hours for the lift. After Discovery is mated to the ET and SRB's she will rollout to pad 39-A. The rollout usually is a week after rollover. JeremyWheat 21:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, very nice. I edited the information added by an anon IP earlier, things like time are historically irrelevant, and we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't for reporting news as it happens, so things like "is being" or "rolling over", have the tenses of actions occurring now. I reword these to reflect past actions, so the entire article doesn't have to be re-done for tense consistency later. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

September

Shuttle Processing for week of 9-7-07

In Orbiter Processing Facility bay No. 3, forward and aft closeout work continues. Work is under way to test for orbiter structural leakage and positive pressure. Final orbiter power down is scheduled for next week.

In the Vehicle Assembly Building, external tank No. 120 was transferred on Wednesday from its checkout cell to high bay No. 1 for mating to the solid rocket boosters. Closeout work is now under way, including mechanical and electrical connections of the tank and boosters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.1.48 (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle Processing for week of 9-14-07

In Orbiter Processing Facility bay 3, forward and aft closeout work is complete. The payload bay doors were opened this week in order to install the tool stowage assembly that will be used by crew members on orbit to test tile repair techniques. The payload bay doors are now closed for rollover, and the vehicle has been powered down.

The orbiter weight and center of gravity have been determined. This is the final task prior to transferring Discovery to the orbiter transporter in preparation for rollover to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Rollover is scheduled for 6:30 a.m. Sept. 19.

In the Vehicle Assembly Building, mating closeout work continues on the external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters in high bay 1.

--JeremyWheat 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo weekly updates! Thanks Jeremy! ^Ariel♥Gold 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle Processing for week of 9-21-07

In Orbiter Processing Facility bay No. 3, workers replaced four seals and their associated components on the right-hand main landing gear strut after a hydraulic fluid leak was discovered during the "weight on wheels" test. The landing gear has been reassembled and testing is under way. If all tests are successful, Discovery will roll over to the Vehicle Assembly Building on Sunday morning.

In the assembly building, mate closeout work is complete on the external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters in high bay No. 1, and preparations are in progress for the orbiter mate on Monday. Rollout to Pad 39A is targeted for Sept. 30. JeremyWheat 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle Processing for week of 9-29-07

On Sunday, Discovery rolled from Orbiter Processing Facility bay No. 3 to the Vehicle Assembly Building. The orbiter was transferred on Monday to high bay No. 1, where it was attached to the external fuel tank on the mobile launch platform. Engineers and technicians spent the week performing attachment operations, closing out electrical and mechanical connections on the shuttle stack. The shuttle interface test is nearing completion. Rollout to Pad 39A is targeted for Saturday evening, with arrival at the pad early Sunday, Sept. 30.

On Thursday, the STS-120 payload was transported to Launch Pad 39A and transferred to the payload changeout room on the rotating service structure. JeremyWheat 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Overloading procesing section with images

In the historical context of the article, once the mission is complete, the processing will be a minor item. As such, it should probably just illustrate the two major milestones, stacking and rollout. There were four images in this very small section, overloading the page with images. Since images should be used to illustrate things that otherwise have no way of being shown (WP:IUP: Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap.), I removed two of the images, that of the payload cannister (Harmony image shown in payload section is sufficient to illustrate the payload) and the image of Discovery moving through the doorway. (Discovery at the pad is sufficient to illustrate it moved to the pad from the VAB). At the bottom of the page I placed the link that goes to Wikipedia Commons to show more images, and that is used for the express purpose of allowing users to view additional images, without loading the article with pictures. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Houston is inside of Texas

The article states "The lightsaber was delivered ... to officials from Space Center Houston by an actor ... It was then flown to Texas, where it was to be put on public display at Space Center Houston ..." Houston is inside of Texas; this should be re-worded. (IP 65.64.245.138 wrote this.)

Yes, but "officials from Space Center Houston" are not always in Houston. According to the cited source, the handover took place in Oakland, California. (sdsds - talk) 06:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

October

Shuttle Processing for week of 10-5-07

On Sunday, STS-120 was transported via the crawler transporter to Launch Pad 39A. The rotating service structure, which protects and provides access to the orbiter at the pad, was rolled into position on Monday. During the week, workers performed shuttle interface testing, orbiter/external tank leak checks and launch pad validations. The payload was installed in the orbiter on Thursday, and the sensor packs were installed on the orbiter boom sensor system.

Loading of hypergolic propellants aboard Discovery is scheduled for this weekend. Next week, the terminal countdown demonstration test is scheduled with the STS-120 astronauts and the launch team. This routine series of events includes emergency training procedures and a launch countdown dress rehearsal.

After the hail monitoring system at the pad showed possible hail in the predawn hours of Wednesday, engineers fully inspected the space shuttle but found no damage. There were no radar indications of hail, though wind-driven rain may have been possible. The calibration of the hail monitoring system sensors and associated instrumentation is being assessed.JeremyWheat 00:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Shuttle Processing for week of 10-12-07

At Launch Pad 39A, the hypergolic propellants have been loaded into the solid rocket booster hydraulic power units, as well as into Discovery's orbital maneuvering system, forward reaction control system and auxiliary power units. On Thursday, the rotating service structure at the pad was rotated away from Discovery to allow for the auxiliary power unit hotfire, which was successfully completed. The rotating service structure was returned to the mate position later that day. Orbiter aft closeout work begins today.

On Sunday, the STS-120 crew arrived at Kennedy Space Center for the terminal countdown demonstration test, which involves a launch dress rehearsal. Crew activities included practicing emergency egress operations at the pad, reviewing the payload bay configuration, and suiting up and climbing into the crew cabin of the orbiter to run through the prelaunch checklist.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, a program-level flight readiness review was held at Kennedy. Space Shuttle Program managers concluded the review with a recommendation to proceed toward a targeted launch on Oct. 23. An agency-level review will take place on Oct. 16 at Kennedy, where an official launch date will be decided. JeremyWheat 00:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovery Go for Launch

NASA GIVES "GO" FOR SPACE SHUTTLE LAUNCH ON OCT. 23

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA senior managers Tuesday completed a detailed review of space shuttle Discovery's readiness for flight and selected Oct. 23 as the official launch date. Commander Pam Melroy and her six crewmates are scheduled to lift off at 11:38 a.m. EDT on the STS-120 mission to the International Space Station.

Tuesday's meeting included a discussion about concerns raised by the NASA Engineering and Safety Center regarding the reinforced carbon carbon on three of Discovery's wing leading edge panels. This issue initially was brought before the Space Shuttle Program during a two-day, preliminary review held last week to assess preparations for Discovery's mission.

"After a thorough discussion and review of all current engineering analysis, we have determined that Discovery's panels do not need to be replaced before the mission," said Associate Administrator for Space Operations Bill Gerstenmaier, who chaired Tuesday's meeting.

During the shuttle's 120th mission, the shuttle and station crews will work with flight controllers at NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston, to add a module to the station that will serve as a port for installing future international laboratories. The Harmony module will be the first expansion of the living and working space on the station since 2001. The upcoming mission also will move the first set of solar arrays installed on the station to a permanent location on the complex and redeploy them.

The 14-day mission includes five spacewalks - four by shuttle crew members and one by the station's Expedition 16 crew. Discovery is expected to complete its mission and return home at 4:47 a.m. EST on Nov. 6.

Joining Commander Melroy on STS-120 will be Pilot George Zamka and mission specialists Scott Parazynski, Stephanie Wilson, Doug Wheelock, Daniel Tani and Paolo Nespoli of the European Space Agency. Tani will remain aboard the station and return with the STS-122 crew, which is targeted to launch Dec. 6. Current Flight Engineer Clayton Anderson will return to Earth on Discovery after nearly five months on the station. JeremyWheat 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep already added to the article, thanks Jeremy! Ariel♥Gold 02:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed - its time for the final countdown! At last - the ISS gets bigger INSIDE - Go Discovery! Colds7ream 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast... We right now have a 60% chance of WXV. Current satellite images show an intense line of storms in a northeast-to-southwest line now moving over the Florida Panhandle. --  Denelson83  10:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And that ice on the umbilical isn't looking good either. It needs to reduce in size before T-9 apparently. I think a launch today is only about 30% or so chance any more. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's off with STS-120, just as promised - sweet as a nut! Colds7ream 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Discovery in Orbit!

Ok here we go. I hope this mission we keep up the page a bit better than STS-118. I am going to stream/save the post fight conference to catch any data needed for Flight Day one section. --zrulli 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added some info gained from the conference. --zrulli 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to find a transcript for the post launch news conference so I can cite it. If anyone has a link, please remove citation needed. --zrulli 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Timezone for launch info

This has been discussed elsewhere before, but I wanted to particularly add a comment regarding STS-120. During the launch countdown -- somewhere near the T-9 minute hold -- the launch director used the the communications loop to verbally confirm with several major launch participants the planned launch time. The time was given and confirmed in GMT. Is there any good reason not to follow this practice on Wikipedia? (sdsds - talk) 17:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

STS-118 has take off and landing timings in local with GMT in ()s and they all ought to be done the same way. That also appears to be the general consenious in most articles. Jon 18:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea I modeled the original time after the STS-118 article. GMT is the way to do it, especially as there is no time zones in space. --zrulli 19:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to use UTC where possible, but we would mention for some groundevents like launch and landing, the relevant local time (ET or CT) within the prose. Also, please use UTC (atomic clock + leap seconds) instead of GMT. Even though NASA regularly says GMT, there is no question they use the atomic clock and thus technically UTC these days. Their usage of GMT stems from their usage of Zulu time. NATO terminology takes a rather long time to get up to speed on that i guess :D I don't really care which we mention first btw, local or UTC. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the WikiProject Space decision about this issue, and the same conversation with STS-118. The basic standards are of course, the manual of style, but per the above threads: 1) Events in orbit should be listed in UTC 24-hour format. Ex: 04:22:43 UTC. 2) Events on the ground (launch/landing) should be listed in LOCAL (UTC 24-hour). Ex: 3:37 p.m. EDT (19:37 UTC). And per the MOS: 12-hour clock times end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, which are spaced (2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm, not 2:30p.m. or 2:30pm). The format we've been following is that used by NASA in status reports, which is the dotted version, so full date/times would be: "Launch occurred at 11:38 a.m. EDT (15:38 UTC) on October 23, 2007. Those have been the standards we've been trying to follow with all missions, so it will make it easy if that is followed for this one and future missions. All events from now on should be given in UTC, and local time only if relevant (such as if/when an EVA starts on one day local time, and ends on another day local time). Landing will be local time with UTC given in parentheses. Hope that helps clear up how it has been done in the past! (And hello everyone!) Ariel♥Gold 19:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, lol

Not even halfway through the mission, and we're already at 60 references. STS-118 had 64 at end of mission. I know it can't be that the media is covering this mission more, because combined with the overblown ding in the belly of the orbiter on STS-118, and Morgan being a crew member, that mission was covered pretty well. Are we adding too many refs to sections, or adding too many refs per item cited, or what, lol. I try to cite everything, twice if the primary ref is from NASA, but it seems this could get pretty big by the end of the mission. I looked for some refs I could remove, but didn't want to remove anything without asking here. I'm thinking the four refs after "two female commanders at the same time" could be trimmed, perhaps nuking the NASA release, as it is covered by 3 mainstream media articles, and maybe removing the MSNBC one. While I'm a big proponent of properly referencing items in articles, I also think that excessive referencing is really not needed, it seems a pretty fine balance, lol. Ariel♥Gold 14:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is much we can do about it. Also, i would only care about 2 refs when stuff comes from NASA when it concerns things that are subject to interpretation. The 'ding' in the belly was a perfect example for that. However if they add a module to the station, i don't think anyone needs two refs. The thing is attached to it. As simple as that. All in all, I think we just got better at referencing. Although I haven't done that much on this article so far. My available time is somewhat out of sync with the daytime events etc. on board ISS. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've missed trying to beat you to the wake-up calls! lol. And yes, you're right with the need for media references, but I still do like to add at least one per day that backs up the activities. Luckily, Bill Harwood (CBS) is awesome at remote-texting in his updates from JSC, so he's never more than a couple hours behind press conferences or activities and a good source. I guess after the mission is over we can review things, maybe remove some refs, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a big deal to anyone, lol. Ariel♥Gold 15:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I removed the {{nowrap}} from the launch/landing time in the infobox, and broke it into two sections, because the way it was, it was causing the entire landing line of November 7, 2007 (approx.) 5:11 a.m. EST (10:11 UTC) to not word-wrap. Some readers use low resolution (800x600), large fonts, and when there is a forced nowrap in an infobox, it makes the infobox stretch over half the width of the page. None of the past missions even use the nowrap template, it isn't needed, so I'm not sure why it is being added for this mission. But at the very least, the day should be on one line, then a forced line break, with the time being on the next line. This will at least make the infobox less than 1/3 (although with those low resolutions/large fonts, it will still be over 1/3 width because of the length of the landing time notation). I realize it is easy to forget that not everyone sees the same things we may, but we should be remindful of the various settings that users have, and remember that not everyone has huge screens, small fonts, and high resolutions. :o) Ariel♥Gold 08:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Launch package patches for assembly missions?

Hey folks - just wondering if it might be a good idea to put the launch package patches up for missions as well as the flight patch - for instance, STS-120 has three patches; the STS-120 one, the 10A one and the Esperia one: [1]. What do we think? Colds7ream 10:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacefacts.de can't be used as a source for the image, (and I don't see that patch on the URL you gave) can you find the patch on NASA or ESA's site? I think we put the ISS patch up on STS-118, let me go check... Hrmm, nope, we didn't. It doesn't seem to be done with any of the recent missions. I think it is a good idea, but we'd have to get the image/source URL from NASA for copyright reasons. If you have the URL for the ISS patch, can you drop it in here so I can upload it? (Or I'll go looking for it later if I have time) Ariel♥Gold 11:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion regarding the use of patches from Spacefacts on the TMA-10 talk page - I'm not sure what the result was. Anyway, the specific images are at http://www.spacefacts.de/mission/p_large/english/sts-120_3.htm and http://www.spacefacts.de/mission/p_large/english/sts-120_2.htm - hope that's useful. Colds7ream 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, those aren't NASA URLs. To prove that the image is in the public domain, we have to use the NASA source URL. Can you find the same image on the NASA site? Ariel♥Gold 11:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've searched for a day, and I cannot find the ISS 10.A patch anywhere on NASA's site. :( I really wish that spacefacts.de would give the sources for their images. If asked, we can't prove the patch is an official NASA patch, and in the public domain, so I'm not sure what to do :( Ariel♥Gold 13:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The payload insignia is mentioned here and they say it probably isn't a patch. (SEWilco 14:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I saw that, but forums aren't a reliable source, and it doesn't give the source the imgage, only saying "The payload insignia is generally not produced as a patch (at least not officially). Its use is mostly limited to plaques displayed and hung in mission control." I've looked high and low for the image on NASA's site, it would be a nice thing to add, but then again, the manual of style says images should only be added to add clarity, or to illustrate things that could not be illustrated in words. In this case, I'm not sure this patch really would add anything to the article, as the images of Harmony itself are quite awesome. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 14:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing out the discussion, not proposing the forum as a source. The payload insignia would be nice as a reflection of the importance of the payload but it's not important enough to try to use a "fair use" image; if I were in a NASA hallway I'd bring out a photo of the insignia but I'm not going to make a special trip to get one. (SEWilco 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Yeah I didn't think you meant to use that as a source, but pointing it out for anyone who may not know why :o) And c'mon, go make a special trip to NASA to get us a picture! ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I do use wikiphotos as an excuse for activities,[2] but I'm not planning on such a long trip soon. But I can be bribed.  :-) (SEWilco 15:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

~*Giggle*~ If I had the money, I'd drag my five cameras out to Florida and do it personally! Hee hee. (I wish!) Ariel♥Gold 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Condensed" references

I notice the references have been placed into a scroll box, removing the two columns, removing the ability to see all references, and I'd like to know if people like this, or dislike it. I personally dislike it, and I don't see this being done on most Featured Articles, which often have more references than this article. Not everyone's screen responds well to forced boxes like this, some resolutions/font sizes result in extreme formatting issues. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice TheDJ removed the box, so I went ahead and put it back to the two column as it was previously. I still would be interested to hearing what others think. Ariel♥Gold 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Longbo!

Longbo! Longbo! We're just losers if we can't get the call signs of at least the most heroic eva participants into the article. (sdsds - talk) 10:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL I think it is hilarious how all the crew have "Rambo" nicknames. These names aren't actually "callsigns" in most cases, at least for this particular crew, but just the nicknames they began to call each other, (at least according to the media). While I really have no strong feelings either way, the nicknames aren't mentioned by the media except briefly in passing, certainly not mentioned daily, or in a way that would cause confusion as to who was being spoken about if one didn't know the nicknames. Probably the Commander and Pilot are the two that have real "callsigns" from their flying days, but where would we put them that would really be appropriate? (And we'd have to be able to verify the callsign is really a callsign, and not just a nickname.) Ariel♥Gold 10:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it's often very casual. I do agree that some of the nicknames/callsigns really help if you listen to NASA communications, on the other hand it's not really important. At least 2 CAPCOMs call Pamela Pambo, but then most of the crew say Pam, so what the hell do wo do with that? First of all, we need a source of course that establishes the nickname as something that is more than just a nickname. I remember that on 117 or 118 mission we had Hobaugh I believe who was only named by his callsign during the entire flight. It was hard recognizing him otherwise. Still even then... i'm just not sure how much it matters. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Node 2

The ISS module Node 2 renamed in Harmoni wos build in Italy from [Alenia Spazio]. --87.21.233.127 14:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) From Italy

Yes, good point. For a mission with such an important Italian component there is almost no mention of the Italian contribution in an otherwise thorough and informative article.--Coconino 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The payload section covers Harmony, but for the purpose and context of STS-120, the details are regarding placement, and installation, not where it was built, that's done in the main article, which goes into full detail about the Italian connection. That being said, I can think of a couple places that it could be mentioned, so I'll look at adding that. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, but I do think there's a case for mentioning the Italian connection here as from a European POV (I'm in London) Harmony is the gateway to greater involvement in the ISS. I did add a little text cribbed from the mission briefing, but add it elsewhere if you feel it's more appropriate.--Coconino 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for adding that, well done! I think adding something about it further down will be good as well, I just need to find the references I'm looking for. I'll work on it more tomorrow, bedtime for Ariel. :o) Ariel♥Gold 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Halloween cape?

Unless I'm imagining things, one of the astronauts aboard ISS at this moment (Clayton Anderson) is wearing a black, flowing "Dracula" style cape to mark Halloween today. Can be seen on the live, public NASA TV right now. Ok, and now the NASA announcer just mentioned it. Just thought it was cute. Doesn't belong in article, unless there's a desire for levity somewhere. - Ageekgal 16:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL I know, I'm watching it too, and another crewmember is wearing a pirate costume, with eyepatch and funky hat. So cute! Did you hear Clay's com check earlier? He did it in the voice of Dracula, it was hilarious! I think it could be noted in the article, if it is mentioned anywhere in the press, it certainly is nice to see a bit of levity during what for them, at least, is a rather fluctuating schedule. I'm waiting until the press briefing to add that the EVA was postponed, as I'm sure Mike will have more information about that, and that sort of info needs to have sources. Mike said that the arrays don't have to "look pretty, it isn't a fashion contest", (lol). He said it was giving 97% of the power, so it didn't sound like a huge deal. But we'll have to see. Ariel♥Gold 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hallowe’en cape picture here Coconino 18:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Protection Request

I would like to suggest the protection of this article for a period of time since it is being vandalized as the event progresses.Camilo Sanchez 18:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Little late -- they just landed. And I haven't seen that much vandalism (compared to Wikipedia in general...!) - Ageekgal 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever dude, I know what I saw.Camilo Sanchez 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Article protection is for persistent vandalism. I'm not disputing you saw some vandalism, as sadly pretty much every page on Wikipedia is probably vandalized daily or weekly. Next time, take you request to WP:RPP, however. Posting in the talk page of the article in question isn't the best way to request protection. - Ageekgal 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to review the protection policy to understand why, and when, it is appropriate to protect an article. Articles that are the subjects of current events are edited by many many people, and to protect them harms the growth of the article. Anonymous editors have just as much right to contribute as registered editors, so partial protection removes the ability for them to edit. Protection is used as a last resort measure, when there is too much vandalism being done by too many different editors, not for one or two unhelpful edits. I hope that helps you understand why there is no need to protect this article. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a picture available of the free floating thingy?

Did they take pictures of the thing that floated near their window? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.254.50 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they took some pictures, but as far as I could determin none of them have been put online by NASA --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

EVA schedule

We have lost some information about original EVA task vs. executed EVA tasks. I feel we need to pay some more attention to the original T-RAD EVA4 , interim EVA4 Full SARJ inspection and the EVA5 PMA2/Node2 prepping. ATM it's kinda lost in the timeline prose. Anyone got some ideas on how to best present that information? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd suggest placing the information into the "Mission background" section, which discusses the changes to the mission schedule. Ariel♥Gold 21:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Media section - video icon

Can someone please remove or fix that video icon in the Media section, it is ruining the aesthetic and breaking the article horizontally. (at least it is for IE 6.0) - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have IE6, so I'm really unsure exactly what you're seeing, could you explain it a bit more? The media box is using the standard Wikipedia movie template, there is nothing that can be removed without removing the entire section, so I'm not sure if it could be fixed for you, except by upgrading to the newest version of IE (or Firefox). Ariel♥Gold 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrollbox for references

• I had put a scrollbox for the references which are real long, and this has been reverted. I'd like to understand why. What's wrong with a scrollbox ? Meanwhile I have put it back. Hektor 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked about this here earlier, it has been reverted both times by others, and I don't see this done with featured articles. Generally the guidelines for pages should follow FA standard, even if the article isn't a FA, so that's why I asked. I personally dislike it as it does not allow the reflist to be viewed in its entirety, but I do understand why you like it, as it makes the page shorter. However, per WP:CITE: "Scrolling lists, for example of full citations or footnote references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers." Ariel♥Gold 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mission duration (vs. STS-80)

This discussion was moved to Talk:Extended Duration Orbiter --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing a ref URL the content of which we know is going to change

I don't see much point in citing as a reference a url of a blog-style page the content of which we know is going to change rapidly. (Hint, if it ends in ".../current.html", it might be changing soon! ;-) Why is this being done? (sdsds - talk) 18:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the CBS News URL, it is because that's often the only place to get breaking news reports, except from NASA's main shuttle page, and we all know that changes daily, lol. (Wish they'd archive their daily info!) When the mission ends, and Bill moves them to the specific Mission page, I change the URLs to go to that past mission page, just as I did with STS-118. While some of Bill's updates are picked up by other news sources (Spaceflightnow, Washington Post, etc.), not all of them are, and Bill's reports are still relevant to the day's events. No worries that it will be a dead URL, it never will be, since it will just go to the current mission page, but I make sure to fix the URLs once the mission is over. If you have another idea, lemme know, but I have noticed out of all the media at JSC during missions, Bill is the one that does the most updates and gets them out there the fastest, (3-5 a day) so it is just helpful to use his mission page when it hasn't reached the slower sites like Reuters, CNN, etc. Ariel♥Gold 19:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: All CBS URLs have been updated to archived pages. Ariel♥Gold 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So... Anyone think we could make this a WP:GA?

I've been thinking about this. I think this is one of the most interesting missions in the last 5 years or so, mainly because it expands the station, and opens it up to more expansion in the future. I think it is a real landmark mission, and would love to see the article get promoted to Good article status. I'm sure there's nothing that would quickfail it, and I think it meets the criteria:

1. Well written, yes.
2. Verifiable, heck yes, lol
3. Broad in coverage, as much as a mission can be, yes,
4. Neutral, yes,
5. Stable, yes
6. Illustrated, yes

   Images all sourced properly, and licensed. I believe they are all Commons images.

I think we'd need to double check that no present tenses remain, double check for any words to avoid (I doubt there are any, but some of the "however"s could possibly be rewritten), and maybe expand on the Esperia mission section if possible, and the Italian aspect of the node.

Any thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 05:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could be made into a good article. It would need more care put into making sure undue weight isn't given to any aspect of the mission. That might include rethinking the structure of the article, including adding more to the lead section, and possibly rearranging some of the others. Also, for those of us involved in the writing the "well written" criterion is difficult to judge! I wonder what an impartial member of the league of copyeditors would have to say about it? (sdsds - talk) 06:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I think the Esperia section could be expanded, and Italy's contributions with regards to Harmony be addressed as well. I think the weight would mostly be on the solar array issue, and I also think that some of the images could be removed, but I'm not sure which ones. With regards to the historical aspect, I think the table with the gallery of images may perhaps be unnecessary, and a simple "tear" and "repaired tear" photo may work just as well (or the diagram showing where the cufflinks were placed). I think the average reader unfamiliar with the subject may not really care enough about that one EVA to need all the images. I've had a few GAs already, and I do think the writing quality is fine, even though I was involved in it, but I agree outside eyes would be helpful. As to the structure, I think it should remain the same as the other missions, for standardization, and it is actually well laid-out, to guide the reader through the mission in progression, so I personally like the layout. I think that some daily summaries could be shortened now that the mission is over, as they may be a bit too detailed for the average reader, and may not have information that is of historical relevance. Thanks for working on it tonight, Sdsds, and I hope I didn't edit conflict you earlier! Ariel♥Gold 07:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

hi crew sts 120 good team the best mission of NASA no change mi favorite mission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.238.186.15 (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on STS-120. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028193838/http://www.abcnews.go.com:80/Technology/wireStory?id=3715606 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3715606
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080616050429/http://abcnews.go.com:80/Technology/wireStory?id=3781048 to http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3781048

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 12:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on STS-120. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110622090206/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3819326 to http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3819326

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 01:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on STS-120. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121015035054/http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5255959.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5255959.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 11:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)