Talk:STS-133/Archive 1

Archive 1

Flight objectives & payloads.

Would everyone please note that STS-133 is, according to the latest NASA launch manifest, the April 2007 FAWG Manifest (which is sitting on my desk in front of me), STS-133, the final mission for Endeavour and the program, is carrying Node 3 and the Cupola to the ISS. I'd be grateful if people would stop returning pages to their statuses as they were at the now out-of-date previous manifest. The current manifest can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Spaceflight. Thanks. Colds7ream 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want to interfere, but can we have some online source for that? NASA's official webpage is telling us something different, see here: [1]. There's also a history of an old version, even though it reads that the new version is of 3/2/06 and therefore would really be outdated by an April 2007 version (which still cannot be found anywhere official). An article about the April 2007 manifest can be found here: [2], but this does not state which orbiter is used and it is very unspecific about dates (so how would you know STS-133 is launched after STS-132 if there are no dates given?). ColdCase 00:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I got it off the L2 section of nasaspaceflight.com's website, which is a subscription-based service, and my subscription will be cancelled if I put the manifest out freely onto the Internet. Colds7ream 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Without verifiable documentation, Wikipedia cannot use it per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the others. L2 information is unverifiable due to its "closed user group" status combined with it being non-interpreted raw internal NASA information. In my opinion the best is to state the official manifest, and then add commentary that multiple sources (the public articles of Chris and those of CBS news for instance) indicate that the current schedule is under constant fluctuation with a very likely alternate configuration. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum btw. I notice the constant "critique" about how "out of date" wikipedia is on the NSF forums and it annoys me more every time I read it. Wikipedians are not reporters, nor do we use information that cannot be verified by the public. If Chris and friends want a wikipedia that is up to date then Chris should consider opening up L2. If wikipedia is not up to date in areas that are public, they are encouraged to edit themselves. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As of the end of STS-124, the updated NASA launch manifest still has STS-133 with Express Logistics carrier's 3 & 4 as its payload. The manifest is updated after every flight and subject to change. I wouldn't belive spaceflightnews for anything. I belive the NASA page's, much more reliable.--Steve (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

First non-shuttle commander to hold the position of Chief of the Astronaut Office

No ! Well, this statement completely neglects the pre-Shuttle era ... Hektor (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

STS-133 Insignia?

Can someone put the insignia for this mission onto the article?76.21.122.234 (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC) John

• It will be added as soon as it is released by NASA. Currently it is not officially released.--NavyBlue84 02:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Launch Azimuth

Does anyone know what the azimuth will be for Monday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.203.230 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

All shuttle launches head along an azimuth of 42.5°. This is because of a rule that says they can not fly over land during launch.--NavyBlue84 11:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that shuttles avoid overflight of populated land area, it's not correct to say that they always follow a heading of 42.5. Shuttles launching at KSC can head anywhere between 35 and 125 degrees. Vandenberg had limits of 201 and 158 degrees which would have put launches into polar orbit had the facility ever been used. The heading depens on the position of the ISS when the mission actually launches and can and will likely change up to final stages of mission planning leading up to the launch date. We've seen 42.5 a lot lately because nearly all missions have been to the ISS. HST servicing missions followed a diAlso be careful not to confuse the launch azimuth with the orbital inclination in the infobox of STS articles in wikipedia. They are not the same thing. launch azimuth is the direction the vehicle heads taking into account the earth's rotation to achieve the orbital inclination thats required. this explains it far better than I can.--RadioFan (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

== There is something wrong with the next shuttle date/time 30th november 2010. It cannot be 4am EDT and 00UTC at the same time.

NEW STS-133 patch

Updated to include Bowen's name. http://www.spacepatches.nl/frontpage/133_bowen_400.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.24.39 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just put a note in the crew photo caption. After NASA makes the new patch official, we can add it to the article.--Tdadamemd (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mission Dates

Per both Nasa.Gov (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts133/index.html) and the Kennedy Space Center website (http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/event.aspx?id=53dd9501-2238-4255-ae6e-a7562613d402&calendar=2010/9/16/ea22fa6a-c5ea-486e-98ea-c80a8cce4773) list this flight as September 16th and not October 28th. Vseven (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of those sites are out of date. With a change request approved to add 2 EVA's and 3 flight days, requires more training and the Sept. launch date can not be met. The earliest possible launch date is Oct. 28, but will target Oct. 29. NASA pages are often out of date as they don't get updated every single day, or at least launch calenders don't get updated every day.--NavyBlue84 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Will an AP article sourced from NASA press releases satisfy you that the sites you have linked to were wrong? [3]. The delays were officially announced today. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Went one better the AP. NSF is more reliable so I used them instead.--NavyBlue84 22:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link...I'm actually trying to schedule a trip to Florida to watch STS-133 and was literally about to book airline tickets for September until I double checked this entry.Vseven (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the BBC science news pages, because the launch of ATV-2 was delayed by 1 day, the STS-133 mission has to delay its launch by 1 day to ensure that the communications satellites are kept clear - apparently mission commanders don't like more than 1 vehicle on route to the ISS at the same time. I've not seen any reference to any of this on the NASA pages, does anyone else here have any knowledge? 155.192.0.234 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12453218 95.147.164.79 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The initial plan was to delay one day. However, NASA managers are looking at whether they can still launch on Feb. 24. The decision will be made at tomorrows "Delta Flight Readiness Review". NASASpaceFlight has an article about it on their site.--NavyBlue84 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

NEW released by NASA crew photo

Surprised they managed to get Bowen in at only L-1 to launch! Photo by NASA. http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-133/hires/sts133-s-002.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.24.39 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

sections without prose

There are three sections without any prose: Crew, Mission Parameters, and Mission Background. I'm generally not a fan of the Mission Parameters sections across all spaceflight articles, since this information is better suited for infoboxes; and the differences in "masses" should probably be explained in prose. Also, the "Mission Background" doesn't really cover the mission background at all (which is covered elsewhere in the article). And the giant Crew table (almost the first this the reader sees) is not eye-pleasing in any way. Do others have similar thoughts, or is this just me? Mlm42 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The crew section is important and the table is SOP now. I know some people have tried to get it to shrink, but not very successfully (I believe you have tried to do this too, not sure my memory isn't great). The table is so wide because of the notes. I wouldn't be opposed to the notes being moved out of the table and moved to a subsection of the crew section. As for the parameters, I agree it would be best in the infobox. I will move it all over to the infobox in a few minutes. The background part is a bit of a misnomer in my opinion. It is more of a shuttle program history, so maybe a rename and changed into a paragraph would be good. What is your thought on that?--NavyBlue84 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't been a fan of the crew table for a while now.. I'd prefer the "Crew" section to be mostly prose, supplemented by a table if necessary (as in the GA STS-8), rather than only being a table (as in pretty much every other Space Shuttle article). I'm not sure about what to do about facts like "108th Post-Challenger mission", and how interesting / relevant they are. Most of these facts could easily be deduced from the List of space shuttle missions. Also maybe it would be a good move to put "Crew Training", "Shuttle Processing", and "Launch Attempts" into a big "Preparations" section. Broadly speaking, I don't think we have a good "model" Space Shuttle mission article to which we can refer for article structure (to me, STS-8 is one of the best). I think the reason so many of the Space Shuttle articles look the same is because much of the content has been directly copied from NASA. Mlm42 (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you on pretty much everything you have just suggested. The background stuff is just facts and while not nessecary, I personally think should be included. However, if they can be done differently then great lets do it, I am just not sure of how it can be done. As for the crew part, not all crews can have prose. Some in my opinion just don't have enough notable/verifiable info. But this is not one. I suggest taking the notes and putting them as prose and having the table as is in the STS-8 article. I whole heartedly support moving the launch attempts, shuttle processing and crew training to one section. Maybe instead of preparations it could be labeled "Ground processing", what do you think? As for the consistent inconsistency, at least all the information is from one source and easy to find! A lot of it has to do with all the different editors. Some have come and gone and are from all over the world. So it makes it hard to get everyone on one page doing the same thing. However, since we have went through some big changes in the spaceflight/space portals, maybe that will get worked out as well.--NavyBlue84 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Launched with only 2 seconds of LOX drainback hold time to spare

It might be interesting to add the fact that this launch went with only 2 seconds of LOX drainback hold time to spare, which probably as close as they have ever cut it timewise and actually pulled off the launch. Safiel (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; it was pretty interesting to listen in at the end of the 5-minute hold. During the post-launch press conference they talked about this in detail; they said they had 2 seconds to spare, and that this was 1 more second than they needed to get the job done. :) Mlm42 (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting?! It was absolutely EPIC!!! Talk about your edge-of-the-seat stuff; damn RSO and her hold switch... Colds7ream (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)