Talk:STS-125/Archive 1

HST-SM04

Does anyone know why this is HST-SM04 but is the fifth service mission? Thanks.--Daysleeper47 23:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there has been HST-SM03A and HST-SM03B. Hektor 05:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Docking system

"The crew also will install a docking system so a future spacecraft can deliver a propulsion module to direct Hubble to a safe atmospheric re-entry point over the ocean once the telescope's useful life has ended." - Quote from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6105134.stm

This isn't mentioned in the article yet. I can't find an appropriate reference for this on NASA's site so haven't put it in the article myself. Richard Taylor 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Got it. It's called the "Soft Capture Mechanism", and is mentioned in the Servicing Mission Four Factsheet

odd

how can a lifespan be deorbited? i would fix it, but i don't know what this sentence is supposed to say. 04:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

When the Hubble Space Telescope is at the end of its life. When its no longer transmitting data or is in a serious state of decay, they will deorbit it. It will happen in a fashion simillar to how the space station MIR was brought down.--Steve (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Next Mission

People keep changing the value of "next mission". In fact, it's getting a bit ridiculous. The only official document that I've seen has STS-119 listed as the next mission (not 126) so unless someone can produce some contrary documentation, it should be left as 119. At least, that's my understanding of the editing guidelines. Perhaps I'm wrong. Please feel free to correct me. Dfmclean 15:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the NASA consolidated launch maifest STS-126 is next after STS-125. STS-126 is assigned to endevour and STS-119 to discovery. Discovery will not be ready for a Novemember mission.--Steve (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Info about STS-125 found misfiled under in STS-124

"Once Discovery safely returns home after STS-124, Endeavour will roll out to launch pad 39B. On the pad, Endeavour will be temporarily re-assigned to mission STS-400. STS-400 is the Launch on Need (LON) rescue flight that would be activated in the event Atlantis has problems during STS-125, the final Hubble servicing flight. Since no "safe haven" capability is available for STS-125, Endeavour will be ready to launch on short notice to rescue the crew of Atlantis if required. Once Atlantis returns safely from STS-125, Endeavour will move to launch pad 39A, to prepare for the launch of STS-126." I've placed it here so it can more easily be integrated into this article. Jon (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delayed launch

Does anyone have any further information about the possible delay to the August launch? 86.152.199.254 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is currently scheduled to launch on 8 October - see http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5396 --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not consider NSF to be a reliable source for actual spaceflight schedules. At most they are a reasonable source for "likely to be delayed to August" type of information. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I disagree with that - in the past, NSF has given accurate updates as to the manifest MONTHS before the 'official' manifest is changed, largely due to the huge number of forum members who hold jobs at NASA centres, and the FAWG planning manifests that are available to the website. I consider their information to be as accurate as any other, perhaps even more so. Colds7ream (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Let me rephrase that. It's not reliable enough to have it contradict with released official NASA information, without explaining why. I have no problem if people add "Currently scheduled for Endeavour in 2009[nasaref], but likely to slip to 2010 and to be flown by Discovery [NSF ref] due to delays in External Tank production[delay ref]. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        • As to why. "think of the children" writing reports for school. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I consider NSF to be the more reliable source. NASA's launch schedule is out of date, and they are unwilling to give an official update because they want to avoid the negative publicity of a major delay. NSF information comes from the workers at NASA, but is more impartial. I should add a note that whilst there are some inaccuracies in their information, most of it is proven to be correct. I seem to remember that they reported "Ares" as the name for the CLV and CaLV several months before it was announced by NASA. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not how reliable we consider it to be and definitely not with it's accurateness. The problem is with how it is/would be perceived by non-spacegeek media, academics and teachers, if official sources like NASAs launch manifest still state something different. And for those people NSF is still mostly in the "blog" category and thus not "reliable" enough to be the sole source. As such we should accommodate these readers and provide them with the best information distilled from the various sources. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the page to show how I think information like this should be included. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Launch Time

I have removed the time of launch. I did this as Nasa has yet to set the offical time when they will launch. The target date remains October 8 but no time has been set as it is too early.--Steve (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, every day has only a maximum of 2 times at which it is possible to launch a Space Shuttle. These times (not down to the second of course) are pretty well known. CBS's Bill Harwood for instance has a list with all these times. It's possible the information came from there. But since there is no source, I agree with you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For this mission I belive they are only going to have one chance a day. They do have a 60min window to launch, which I did post next to the launch date. They do have it down to the second about 24hr prior to launch. That still changes right up to the T-20min hold, when they confirm the exact launch time.--Steve (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hubble missions only have one launch time per day due to the due-east launch. Other missions (eg, ISS) theoretically have two launches per day (northerly and southerly heading) but Nasa will prefer only one launch direction. All ISS flights are launched on the northerly heading (42°) as the southerly heading will fly over Cuba and south-America. On the northerly heading it's ocean all the way to Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.176.79 (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have moved this so its in its own section. I did this as someone had put a time in. This time is unsourced and is NOT the set launch time by NASA. Nasa does not have an exact time until approx. 24hrs prior to launch and does not have a time at all until about a week before.--Steve (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The launch time was confirmed by the NASA public affairs office, first as "around 1:30am" and then as 1:34am specifically about ten days ago. You can find this in Bill Harwood's space place, SpaceflightNow.com, and, frankly, even in some of the documents I've seen on places like NASA Spaceflight which seems to get cited. They don't pick a time for missions, it is dictated by the orbit of the HST and ISS for ISS flights.

If you want to argue another point, you should probably remove NSF as the source of the Oct. 8 date being that Oct. 8 is on the NASA schedule. --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For your info I never use Bill Harwood, or NasaSpaceFlight. They are unreliable sources. You should talk to the other people who post articles from unreliable sources. I know how they determin launch times. I am not an idiot. The time should not be posted until the time is released and posted on the NASA website. The PAO office, while yes may have an idea, they do not know the offical time until much later. The exact time will not be determined until hours before launch. They may say 1:34am, but that could be moved minutes or hours in either direction. Once again site a page that has the time listed on it as your source.--Steve (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Minutes and seconds, yes. Hours, no. There is no "idea" versus "official time." The exact second the shuttle lifts off on ISS or HST missions is not known until the T-9 minute hold. Would you like to wait to add a time here until then? The PAO office is not guessing, obviously, and I beg to differ on Harwood or NSF being incorrect. What do you think they are making up the time? Sources that say 1:30am: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/currentglance.html#FLIGHTPLAN http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/

And like I said, why is the source of Oct. 8 being the date NSF and not NASA. Unfortunately I cannot see how to edit the references list.

Oh, and Steve, by your same definition, how do you come up with the window being exactly 60 minutes without a source?

--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The source for the launch window is NASA. I didn't post the date, or cite the source. I will post a source for the launch date and window. You need to cite a source for the launch time. To cite a source click on the button with "ref /ref" on it. To change a source higlight the text between "ref text here /ref". You need to cite your sourve on the main page. I changed the source that I did not add. Also add the NASA page that contains that info.Citing those 2 sources doesn't mean nothing to me.--Steve (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The official time of 1:34am EDT has been added to the NASA schedule on July 15: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think leaving the Approx. in front of the launch time is a good idea. Seeing as it can be bumped up or back. As we all know it can be adjusted at any time. Like the landing time, sure they have one, but that is subject to change as orbits are adjusted and what not.--navy_blue84 Navy Blue 15:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs)

Just as a reference point should they target it, May 12 launch time is around 1:11pm EDT. --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/currentglance.html#FLIGHTPLANA

Launch schedule update

I saw an announcement that launch has been pushed back by two days to October 10th. Dfmclean (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have only seen the one page that has the change. It is a NASA page, and as of yet all others haven't updated. The launch window remains and will remain 60min, unless denoted in a NASA article.--Navy blue84 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can find the list of windows here: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts125/fdf/125windows.html --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• If anything 66min for the launch window is wrong. Yes there are a couple that are 66min, but a majority are 62min. I think saying Approx. 60min would be good as it will be refined more and more.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be refined much, actually. ISS flights are refined by the minutes and seconds as the launch date nearsbecause the ISS' orbit is constantly being adjusted. Since Hubble is not, I don't expect a change of more than seconds. The window times are correct, the chart is issued by NASA. I don't think they would make that up. Here too: http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/currentglance.html#WINDOWS. I think there is also a post on nasaspaceflight about it but I am not sure where. In terms of approx. 60 mins, it's not objectionable really, but why not just list the window for that date and change it if the launch slips? --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You got a point. However there is 3 windows and 2 of them are 62min and one 66min. Therefore my point of view is the apprx. 60min. Just a thought and opinion on it, because the time's vary.--Navy blue84 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by three windows?--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 windows there. Unless I am misunderstanding it.

10/08/08...01:34:49 AM...02:36:39 AM...Flight Day-3

10/09/08...01:04:11 AM...02:06:04 AM...FD-3

10/10/08...12:33:35 AM...01:39:51 AM...FD-3 --Navy blue84 (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Those are the launch windows for each day, Oct. 8th then Oct. 9th, etc. There is one launch time and window each day, with the time moving back about 30 minutes each day into the future. On Oct. 10 the window is 1233 to 139am.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right, my eyes were seeing them all as the 10th. My mistake, since it is the only time that day and it is a 66min window then I agree that leaving it as is.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just posting this as an update before anyone wonders. The new launch time is 12:43am (and has been posted to the official NASA schedule). The window close time remains the same. NASA will target ten minutes into the "actual" window to achieve [edit:] better ascent performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapeCanaveral321 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the launch window not stay at 66min as they can launch early? As unlikely as it is.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, could put launch target 1243am, launch window 1233-139. It's like the iss missions where the window is technically ten minutes but they only use the second five.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. It was just a passing thought. I didn't see it that way, but now that I think about it, that is right.--Navy blue84 (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Delayed Again

Spaceflight Now has an article about it. – kentyman (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Added refrence to article. Linked to an article written by Marcia Dunn of the AP.--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Different LON Shuttle?

Since Endeavour is going up in November now, does that mean a different shuttle will be used for the LON mission? --Resplendent (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That all depends on when STS-125 actualy is set to get off the ground. If it is delayed until after STS-119(Discovery) then no, Endevour will still be the STS-400 shuttle. If it is launched before STS-119 then yes it will change more then likely and will be Discovery since it will be ready and Endevour will have just returned from a mission.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Contraditions

The article contradicts Hubble Space Telescope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephiles602 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. This article was updated today about the launch delay. The HST article has been updated too. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

MCC personnel

With regards to the addition of a table listing MCC personnel, please review the solution that was done for STS-122 about a year ago. MCC personnel are not integral to the mission, especially the PAO or CAPCOM, they are irrelevant to the encyclopedia article on the shuttle mission. That is to say, if the personnel changes, it does not at all impact the mission or its timeline, thus, they are not given their own section. Instead, we add a link to the page that lists them for those people who are curious, in External links section. When the missions begin, those MCC personnel who are relevant, such as the Flight Director, MMT Chairman, etc., are given mention in the article's prose. Hope this clears up why it is not included as a table. Ariel♥Gold 00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Decision on launch order

According to this website, a decision on whether Endeavour will launch first or Atlantis will launch first will actually not be made until next month. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The schedule is under constant evaluation yes. That does not mean that there currently isn't a schedule. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have heard they may not decide until the new year has passed, based on testing of the new component they would be taking up. They may continue to target May 15 for 127 until they know they won't be doing (plus its the rescue vehicle anyway).--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems very likely. As I have said on the STS-119 discussion page, Atlantis will need a new set of boosters and a new External Tank. In addition, the new equipment needs to arrive in a timely manner. So there could be the possibility that the tank will arrive late and/or the new equipment could arrive late. Also, space shuttle Discovery will probably need to be the new LON vehicle. Discovery's tank could also arrive late. However, the best thing we can do right now is just hope that Atlantis does not get delayed any further.--68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to a NASAspaceflight article regarding the decision. According to this site, a decision will be made on January 23, 2009, which is about two months earlier than they originally said it would take place. So, yes, the decision will come after the New Year has passed. I can say that I am glad that the decision got moved ahead. I hope that the decision will remain on that date. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw on Spaceflightnow.com that engineers are still pressing ahead with a May 12th launch of Atlantis. Here is the link: Spaceflightnow.com --68.60.67.149 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth saying that the launch date for this mission is dependent on Discovery/STS-119's launch date? Because I saw on Spaceflightnow that if Discovery launches on April 7, then this mission will move to No Earlier Than (NET) June 2. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• No I don't think it should be. If we mention it here, then we have to mention that every mission is dependent on the mission prior to it. Plus STS-125 is also dependent on whether or not they have flow control valves for Atlantis and Endeavour. There is a lot that STS-125 is dependent on.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Above, I have mentioned a SpaceFlightnow.com article that talks about a decision on using 2 launch pads for the HST mission. At the start of the article, though, it says the NASA managers agree to press ahead with the planned May 12 launch date. (That article is actually the latest one related to this mission) So based on what the start of the article says, is it safe to assume that unless Discovery/STS-119 is delayed further, that this mission can still launch on May 12? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• It depends on the nature of the delay to STS-119. If it is determined that a complete redesign of FCV's are needed then chances are there will be a delay to STS-125. Also NASA managers are not sure yet if they are going to press ahead and delay Ares 1x and use a dual pad LON or if they are going to use a single pad option. Single pad op's are a little more involved but can be done without delay to STS-125. However all that being said, it does look like there will be no delay's to the manifest, but as we all know, that can change quickly.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it can indeed. In fact, I think one time I saw on Space.com that a decision on using one pad or 2 will be made on April 1. I hope that they can use the single pad option and not delay Ares I-X further, because that can have a ripple effect on the Orion manifest, thus delaying some missions. I do see how a redesign of the FCVs can delay Atlantis/STS-125 as well. If Discovery/STS-119 is delayed further, then the same procedures to fix Discovery's FCVs would be needed on Atlantis's FCVs. In fact, I think I saw an article on Space.com that said that some of the FCVs on both Atlantis and Endeavour would be installed to Discovery's engines. So both the orbiters would need them back and in flight ready status. The delay of STS-119 and 125 would be in the same fashion as STS-122 and 123, because both those External Tanks needed better wiring for the engine-cutoff sensors. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First time two shuttles in space??

As far as I'm reading sts 125 will launch May 12, 2009 to May 23, sts 127 is noted as launching May 15, 2009... this would imply that there would be two shuttles in orbit at the same time...

Does anyone know if this is true??? if it is would it constitute a record of some kind??? also, does this pose some kind of safty risk, if two are in orbit then only one would be on the ground, impossible to launch two rescue missions if needed, especially considering the two different orbits...

can anyone clarify??? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.168.146 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not likely. When 125 launches in May, then 127 will launch in June most likely. However, the timetables for the missions are extremely flexible. If 125 needs to be delayed further, 127 might launch first in may, and 125 at a later time. You can see it like this. Any mentioned "scheduled launch date", is no more than a time when the engineers need to have the shuttle for launch. Wether or not it wil actually launch at that date is dependant on any number of secondary factors. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. NASA did make a mistake in the scheduling, and has since been updated. It is now slated for a May 12th launch for STS-125, and the next launch, Endeavour on STS-127, is now slated for June 13th. Thenasaman (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Press Kit

Flight Day 1

• Launch • Payload Bay Door Opening • Ku-Band Antenna Deployment • Shuttle Robotic Arm Activation • Space Support Equipment Checkout • Umbilical Well and Handheld External Tank Video and Stills Downlink

Flight Day 2

• Atlantis Thermal Protection System Survey with Orbiter Boom Sensor System • Extravehicular Mobility Unit Checkout • Payload Bay Flight Support System Preparations • Rendezvous Tools Checkout • HST Aperture Door Closure • HST Maneuver to Rendezvous and Grapple Attitude • HST High Gain Antenna Retraction

Flight Day 3

• Rendezvous with the Hubble Space Telescope • HST Solar Arrays Positioned for Grapple • HST Grapple and Berth on Flight Support System • Shuttle Robotic Arm Survey of HST • EVA 1 Procedure Review

Flight Day 4

• EVA 1 by Grunsfeld and Feustel (Wide Field Camera III Installation, Science Instrument Command and Data Handling Computer, Soft Capture Mechanism Installation and Latch Over Centerline Kit Installation) • Wide Field Camera III Aliveness Test and Checkout • SI C&DH Aliveness Checkout • Bay 3 Battery Checkout • EVA 2 Procedure Review

Flight Day 5

• EVA 2 by Massimino and Good (Rate Sensor Unit Changeout and Bay 2 Battery Changeout) • Bay 2 Battery Checkout • Rate Sensor Unit Checkout • EVA 3 Procedure Review

Flight Day 6

• EVA 3 by Grunsfeld and Feustel (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph replaces the Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement known as COSTAR and the repair to the Advanced Camera for Surveys) • Cosmic Origins Spectrograph Checkout • ASC Checkout • EVA 4 Procedure Review

Flight Day 7

• EVA 4 by Massimino and Good (Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph refurbishment and New Outer Layer Blanket replacement over Bay 8) • Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph Checkout • EVA 5 Procedure Review

Flight Day 8

• EVA 5 by Grunsfeld and Feustel (Bay 3 Battery Changeout, Fine Guidance Sensor-2 Replacement and New Outer Layer Blanket replacement over Bay 5) • Fine Guidance Sensor-2 Checkout • Bay 3 Battery Checkout • Advanced Camera for Surveys and Wide Field Camera III Combined Checkout • High Gain Antenna Deployment • HST Reboost, if propellant permits • Rendezvous Tools Checkout

Flight Day 9

• HST Aperture Door Opening • Atlantis/HST Maneuver to Release Attitude • HST Release • Atlantis Separation Maneuver • Flight Support System Stowage in Payload Bay • OBSS Unberth • OBSS Late Inspection of Atlantis Thermal Protection System

Flight Day 10

• Crew Off Duty Time • Crew News Conference • Atlantis/ISS Ship-to-Ship Call

Flight Day 11

• Flight Control System Checkout • Reaction Control System Hot-Fire Test • Cabin Stowage • Ku-Band Antenna Stowage

Flight Day 12

• Deorbit Preparations • Payload Bay Door Closing • Deorbit Burn • Kennedy Space Center Landing

• NASA STS-125 Press Kit (PDF 4.8 Mb)
  • LanceBarber (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Updating related articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/template list contains a list of related articles and other Wikipages that need updating with each launch. Rmhermen (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wakeup Music

Unless anybody has a contradiction to this, I would be more than happy to, once again, upadate the wakeup music information and songs and links as they arise. Each would be updated within hours of the crew's wakeup. Also, if you have any doubts, I did the majority of the wake-up calls for the STS-119 mission. Any questions or concerns, either reply or leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Thenasaman (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure go right ahead. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"a long stretch of damage"

The homepage of news.bbc.co.uk is reporting (in the news ticker, no article yet) that "Astronauts discover a long stretch of damage on the space shuttle Atlantis". 87.115.168.96 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather large overstatement. It is already in the article with supporting references that confirm it is of little concern. Briefing materials here: [1], and during the MMT briefing, managers confirmed that it is a shallow scraping of the tile, and don't even expect to need a focused inspection. Ariel♥Gold 23:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

21 or 29 inch, it's not nothing, if its got a hole, its very dangerous, on that leading edge, neway, i rili dont understand how they would not have ceramic plasters that be safe. The last one had a hole to put a garbage bag full of water in hadn't it? i suppose it would be allright, be stuff if they can pressurize that wing(edge).62.194.221.212 (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a whole. They are tiny dings, approx. 10 of them. They are NOT on the wing leading edge. They are in an area known as the chine. Mission managers have also deemed them to be minor and not significant enough for a flight day 5 focused inspection. They aren't nothing, but they are not a big deal either.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It really annoys me that Wikipedia and space enthusiasts have to educate the people, simply because these news agencies don't know what they are talking about, misquote NASA, and report for sensationalism instead of information. It is a disgrace.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I could not agree more, DJ. It is a sad thing that news agencies actually want something horrible to go wrong, just for the sake of news. Thankfully, this is minor, has no mission impact, doesn't require any further inspection, and is just part of the normal, expected minor damage the tiles take during ascent. Ariel♥Gold 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting & reference reformatting

I did some copyediting, adding non-printing whitespace for easier editing, and reformatting of reference citations so they can be far more easily read, checked, and updated by editors. It was especially necessary for this article because there were several parameter-name typos, inconsistent date formatting, confusing use of various date parameters, and other problems. Besides these fixes and making all the dates consistently formatted (to "mm d, yyyy" format, per MOS:DATE for U.S. article), I changed as little as possible. That means that there are still huge variations in how parameters like title, work, publisher, last[name], first[name], and author are being used. I also haven't tried to verify any of the actual citations yet. But I ran out of time, so I'll leave this to later (or to others). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the time it took for you to make those changes, I personally dislike having the format for references on separate lines like that. It makes it nearly impossible to tell what is a new paragraph and what is not, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to edit an article, since the edit area becomes 6x+ as long when scrolling. This of course, is a personal preference, but this has never been done on mission articles in the past, (nor on any of the GAs or FAs I've worked on) and we've had no issues with people knowing where to edit or what to edit previously. As for consistent date formatting, people use older/different reference templates and/or scripts/programs to format references (there are many, many tools out there to format wiki refs, and they are by no means standardized! lol), and while the mission is ongoing, and the article is being updated constantly, it is a little difficult to expect total consistency. Those are the types of things we go back through articles after the mission is over, and fix. Currently all refs are in the same general format, author, date, title/URL, publisher, and access date. Whether it uses the field of 'last name' or 'first name' really doesn't make much difference, so I personally don't see that being an issue that needs to be worried about. They all display correctly regardless of the template the editors use. (If someone adds a ref with a naked URL next to it, obviously those should be converted to a template, for consistency, of course.) Please don't take my comments negatively, I just don't think this is an issue, especially as the article is undergoing massive changes over the next few weeks. Ariel♥Gold 10:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Call signs

I noticed someone added parenthetical comments about military call signs. This has been previously discussed, and it was decided that these should not be added to the crew notes section, and instead simply mentioned once in prose when there are names that are used in NASA documents that may cause confusion. The precedent used was that of STS-114, but that article does not currently conform to any of the standards or guidelines that WikiProject Space currently has, or any of the recent articles (in fact it is on my list of articles needing a major rewrite), so can't be used as a precedent. I suggest removing these parenthetical comments and placing the relevant call signs into the daily prose section. Ariel♥Gold 19:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What about putting it in quotes? For example Scott D. "Scooter" Altman. Like it is listed above his photo on his article. I think it would look better doing that. Also people would know who was being talked about if watching NASA TV or videos on You tube.--Navy blue84 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

At first, that sounded like a good idea, but after editing it to do so, it looks very un-encyclopedic:

• Scott D. "Scooter" Altman (4) - Commander
• Gregory C. "Ray J" Johnson (1) - Pilot
• Michael T. "Bueno" Good (1) - Mission Specialist 1
• K. Megan McArthur (1) - Mission Specialist 2
• John M. Grunsfeld (5) - Mission Specialist 3
• Michael J. "Mass" Massimino (2) - Mission Specialist 4
• Andrew J. "Drew" Feustel (1) - Mission Specialist 5

First and foremost this is an encyclopedia, and articles should be as professional as possible. Not all nicknames are call signs, and not all pilots use their call signs for NASA missions, so this would be a hard thing to keep track of. Someone may have a nickname that only NASA uses, and means nothing, someone else may have multiple nicknames, or be called by their middle name (like Tony Antonelli). I think that adding their nicknames as part of the prose in the mission timeline may be the best, most professional way to go about working in these call signs and nicknames. Ariel♥Gold 10:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And the rest of the callnames can be handled in the individual articles of the astronauts. —TheDJ (talk • contribs)A

It is also worth keeping in mind that these nickames/call signs are very rarely used in NASA documents, news reports, or other references, with the possible exception of Dominic (Tony) Antonelli, who is called Tony, never Dominic. NASA generally uses first, last name on first mention in reports/documents, and for every subsequent mention, just the last name, so to use these nicknames can get a bit confusing. I have gone ahead and removed them from the crew list, and worked them into the prose of the timeline, but I still think it looks unencyclopedic, and few official NASA documents support these nicknames :| Ariel♥Gold 21:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Live Stream

Is anybody watching the Live stream of the Repair: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/spacevidcast —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNatonstan (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

no SAFER

Of interest may be that they don't use SAFERs for these EVA's. Quite unusual. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no reason to use them, since the shuttle can move around to pick up a spacewalker who becomes untethered, but boy did it irritate me when CNN reported they were not even using tethers. Sheesh, you'd think a major news agency like that would get their facts straight before spouting such a ridiculous statement. I miss Miles O'Brien! Ariel♥Gold 09:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Plus one of them is always on the arm, which they can attempt to move quickly and grab the free floater. I would have liked to see them use MMU's, that would have been awesome!! As to CNN, they only displayed the launch for about a minute before and a minute after. Been like that the last couple launches. I agree Miles O'Brien is awesome, too bad he is at Everest base camp, covering Scott Perazensky.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Navy, Miles O'Brien was "let go" from CNN last year during their downsizing. He may be covering Scott Parazynski's Everest bid (although it should be noted, Miles is not there, he's at the Challenger Learning Center in NY), but it would not have mattered, since CNN let him go. That's why I said I missed him covering the launches, because these "reporters" they have doing it now are totally clueless. :) Ariel♥Gold 12:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Elapsed

On day 6, hour 9, minute 59, second 58. According to all times listed on NASA.gov. All 5 Shuttles have been in space for a combined total of 1200 days. Congrats NASA. HouAstros1989 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Parameters

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 portion of that information 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 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"waived off"?!

Do NASA's releases really use the phrasing "waived off"? My understanding of those words, reinforced by ArielGold's inclusion of the definitions of "waive", would indicate that it should either be "waved off" (as in the hand gesture meant to dismiss something) or just "waived" with no "off" after it; "waived off" is redundant grammatically. If that's what NASA actually says, then arguably it should be [sic]'ed. John Darrow (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NASA not only uses the term "waived off", but it is also used by the Hubble PAO Twitter site here. Waive means A: to relinquish voluntarily B: to refrain from pressing C: to put off from immediate consideration. I agree that 'waive' (without the "off") is actually better, but NASA has historically used the term "waived off". They actually seem to interchange the three terms (waived, waived off, and waved off) with no regard for which is technically the proper word to use. Since one cannot wave at someone in space (well, one could, but the people in space most certainly would not see them, lol) I chose to use the word 'waive'. I agree that removing the 'off' from it would help with grammatical inconsistency, however, so I'll do that if there are no objections. Ariel♥Gold 09:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What are the crew actually doing during these final days? There's lots of information about the landing times and the weather, but no information on what the crew are doing. Starfiend (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They work through the deorbit preparations checklist (over four hours), and when landings are waived, they have to 'backout' of the same checklist, which is another several hours. They aren't doing anything else. The rest of the time is just spent reviewing checklists and handbooks, or other things that MCC asks of them. Ariel♥Gold 11:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Planned EVA times

Let's include these. Not all EVAs are planned 6:30 as User:ArielGold believes. Under- and over-runs are a very legitimate matter of interest. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning: Nearly all EVAs are "planned" for around 6:30, that's the safe time for consumables, if not recharged, etc., but many of them go over, it isn't something that is rare, strange, alarming, or noteworthy. "Planned" EVA time is not given in any of the many lists, mission articles, or other EVA pages on Wikipedia (with the possible exception of a couple EVAs that were cut short due to major problems, but then mentioned in notes area, not duration column), nor is it part of the mission article MOS. An EVA lasts as long as it lasts, 1 minute or 8 hours; the "duration" column is for actual duration. The notes section details what was accomplished during the time, or notes if it was cut short due to problems (in which case the original planned length could certainly be mentioned in the notes section); if it is a very long EVA, then the details of the length can be given in the notes section, such as "sixth longest spacewalk ever". The EVA table is a summary of what actually happened, not what was supposed to happen. Those details are given in the daily timeline prose (or notes section). Ariel♥Gold 13:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I'm not convinced, but I'll wait to see if other editors have any interest in this idea. Cheers. --El Ingles (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either, but I also think that tabulating data like that is hardly useful and more suited for something like Wolfram Alpha and not Wikipedia (where we write articles with, well you know, text, paragraphs etc). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked every other list relating to EVAs. None of them have the "planned" times listed in the column. That simply is not the function of the column. I didn't say they weren't of interest or important to some readers, but simply that the information did not belong in that column, and that it is really only notable when an EVA is cut very short due to a major issue, or extended into record-breaking time, and in both cases, this is usually noted either in the "notes" section, or the daily prose, which I went ahead and added. Ariel♥Gold 23:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I also added a historical note regarding the times to the top of the EVA section, in the prose. Ariel♥Gold 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. TVM. --El Ingles (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

With reference to 'sixth longest spscewalk ever' would it not be better to say 'at the time it was the sixth longest space walk ever', or similar, as it won't be that long, I suspect, before there are many more longer spacewalks/EVA's, and then it will just look wrong or silly. Unless of course someone is then prepared to come back a re-edit all those references. Starfiend (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reword that sentence. Ariel♥Gold 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Reason for RSU 3 replacement guide pin misalignment

Presumably NASA will analyze the replacement RSU which could not be installed during the second EVA due to guide pin misalignment. We should include a note about their findings once results are published. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Little things like this happen on nearly every EVA, something doesn't fit, something has problems coming off or going on, etc., this is to be expected. Since the unit was replaced (with a refurbished unit), and diagnostics may take months to understand what happened with the 007 unit, it isn't a mission-impacting issue, in my opinion, and doesn't necessitate undue weight. It is explained that they would not align, and a backup unit was instead installed. That would seem sufficient for the small part that item played in the mission, I would think. Ariel♥Gold 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial Cancellation

I think a paragraph or two describing the details of the mission's earlier cancellation (in 2004?) and subsequent rescheduling would be appropriate somewhere. This is a very complete article, and I think it would be great to get it to FA status! --Resplendent (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that is on my list of things to do :) Ariel♥Gold 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done :) Ariel♥Gold 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The only other things I can think of that could be added that would improve it would be graphics showing the locations of the replaced components on the Hubble, along with a comparison between the orbits of the Hubble and ISS to better illustrate the need for STS-400. --Resplendent (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Big Bang Un-neutral

I think the article should be edited to remove the mention of the Big Bang near the beginning. It seems quite un-neutral to use it as fact. ~If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)