Talk:STS-129/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orbiter

While NSF does say that Atlantis is likely to be the orbiter to fly STS-129, that does NOT mean that it is the orbiter. Atlantis is purely speculation and speculation shouldn't be put in to Wikipedia articles. For all intents and purposes, Discovery is still the orbiter that will be flying. Until there is an official announcement it should stay as Discovery and not Atlantis.--Navy blue84 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• NASA Consolidated Launch Manifest says Atlantis too. That is enough. Hektor (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

At the time that it was being changed, neither NSF or the NASA Consolidated Launch Manifest nor any press release from NASA stated Atlantis was the orbiter. Since NASA is now updated there launch manifest to indicate this, then I agree it should be reflected in the article.--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Parameters section

While attempting to help make mission articles look more encyclopedic, reader friendly, and less "tech-listy", (the average reader has no idea what an apogee or perigee is, nor do they care) I've removed the section titled "parameters" and moved all those items into the infobox as designed. The infobox has many fields of information available in it, and only a part of it is being used in the shuttle mission articles. There is no reason to present information in a list in the article, when the infobox has been coded to handle that information. Ariel♥Gold 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System

Will Shuttle Atlantis be equipped with the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System for STS 129 and beyond missions?. Also some internet sites mention that the duration of the flight is 15 days, while in the NASA web pages, it is reported as a 11 day mission with a possibility of adding an extra day. Hence, has the duration of the mission reduced from 15 days to 11 days?. If Atlantis will not be fitted with the Station-Shuttle Power Transfer System, will it has been the reason for such a reduction or is it due to the nature of the mission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.226.6.203 (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

No Atlantis will not have the SSPTS system. They have ran out of money and time for it. I believe the mission is 15days and that is the max duration that an Atlantis can stay on orbit before having to come home. They can actually stay on orbit a couple days longer, but those 2 days are protected as contingency weather wave off days. Atlantis was suppose to get SSPTS after STS-125, but when it got bumped to May, they decided that it wasn't needed and they wouldn't have time to install it, and was pointless for 2 missions that were shorter in duration. Also everything I seen on the NASA site has 15days as mission duration.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Crew

Regarding the repeated removal of reliably-sourced crew lists, please note that normally the crew lists are placed ahead of time by people who read about the crew assignments on forums, without any sourcing. In those cases, they absolutely should be removed, but note that Nasaspaceflight.com is a highly reliable news source for all space-related articles, used widely, and trusted by NASA. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that all sources for space related articles must be NASA published, that would be like saying any article on the government can not have sources other than those posted by the government, lol. Please refer to the reliable sources policy, and read the article that is used as a reference. It specifically says that NASA has not officially announced the crew, but that information was given by NASA to the site regarding the crew selection, and could change before the official announcement. When NASA releases the information officially, the reference will be changed, and any changes that may happen between now and then be put into the article. But to remove a reliable source is not helpful to the article, and as it is properly sourced, it should be left in. Ariel♥Gold 00:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of reliable does not match everyone's, and seeing as though we are talking about people here (astronauts) in which they or their families might see a rumor here before they heard it themselves, it is a bad idea to cite a site like nasaspaceflight. Keep in mind, this page and the biography of Anna Fisher were updated to say she was on the STS-129 crew not too long ago; and, guess what, the source was given as nasa spaceflight. Maybe it is right this time, but maybe it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CapeCanaveral321 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My "definition of reliability" is based upon Wikipedia policy, as set out at WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. NASA Spaceflight, Spaceflight Now.com, and Space.com, are respected space-news reporting agencies, with reporters that are present during NASA press conferences, launches/landings, and other events, and have access to NASA documents that are not available easily online. Nearly every single mission article in the past 4 years has had sources from all those sites, as well as others such as CBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, etc. To imply that NSF is not a reliable source, but SFN is, is simply not true. The difference between this, and the Anna Fisher edit you mention, is that like most of the mission articles, that crew list was added from information read on the forums, not verifiable information reported on the news site itself. There is a very big difference between the reliability and verifiability of the two. This report is on the site as a news report, not some random forum post by some unknown person.Ariel♥Gold 01:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but the article cites the forum post only and no other information. I say leave it for now, it's bound to come out within days if true.

I don't see any information anywhere saying Jeff Williams is going up on 129. Perhaps the revised shuttle schedule has changed his status. I have seen him listed as possible Soyuz up with 129 only transporting down.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say the information was obtained from the forums, it says it was received from L2, which is where the staff folks from NASA send Chris Bergin (via email, and other methods) information not yet released to the public, and he posts that info to the L2 forums, which have an agreement that anything read there is not to be posted anywhere else unless it is first made public by the site's news page (which this was). I don't have any idea where the information regarding Williams came from, I too, can find no documentation that says he is going up on STS-129, but I have seen documents that confirm he is to be part of a future increment, probably Expedition 21. Ariel♥Gold 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin Public Radio interviewed Williams in April 2008 wherein he was described as flying to the ISS on a Russian Soyuz. As of this time, STS-129 will not launch an astronaut to the ISS. --Collectspace (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for a crew? I removed the one that had been placed there as there was no source attached and I can not find one. I will keep looking, but if someone has a source for the crew, please do post it with the crew.--Navy blue84 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a source and added crew with a refrence.--Navy blue84 (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, as far as I am concerned, is not to list crews until announced in a press release by NASA. We had a whole conversation about not citing news sites or others sites like spacefacts without any real announcement or quotes from anyone.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that instead of having this whole conversation every time a crew is spotted on a website, the rule needs to just be, do not list it until officially acknowledged by NASA in a press release or a statement in an article where an official acknowledges the crew. The simple fact is that in the past, including in the past few months, this has resulted in inaccurate info (i.e. the STS-129 crew was named once and that turned out to be wrong; now we are looking at what likely is the crew, but just in case, let's wait). --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I agree with that guideline, generally. But when there is a reliable source given, that speculates on a specific flight's crew list, it is completely, and totally justified to put it in the article, given one makes it clear that NASA has not yet announced the official crew. This is just the same as when news agencies speculate on who will run for president, yet the candidate has yet to announce they are officially running. NASASpaceflight.com is a valid, reliable news source, and the reference given was NOT from their forums, it was from a news article. That makes it a valid source, and a valid entry to the article. To say that only NASA sources can be used is not consensus, and not policy. Ariel♥Gold 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Will this be the first space flight to have two African Americans flying on the shuttle at the same time? Dreammaker182 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Any way to not have the crew notes section centered?

I agree the crew notes look better at the bottom of that table but it looks wonky (to me) that the text is centered. I know HTML but don't know the Wiki-friendly/desired way to uncenter that text. - Ageekgal (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Range Conflict

Do we really need to have a section on the conflict for avalibility of the Eastern Range? This is not a one time deal and just about every space shuttle mission dating back to STS-1 has had some sort of conflict with another launch vehicle. Most of the time its not a factor, or as tight as this time, but its nothing new and has never been included in other articles. So why include it this time?--NavyBlue84 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)