Talk:Space Shuttle Discovery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Odd

The word 'orbiter' seems to be missing from the first part of this. It is in the edit, but does not show up in the text.

Like here - The is still operational today, and has performed both research and International Space Station (ISS) assembly missions.

Strange Edit... Third to Fourth?

I'm not sure why someone changed the ordinal reference to this shuttle from "third operational space shuttle" to "fourth operational space shuttle". Nevertheless, for the sake of consistency with other articles (other orbiters), I changed it back.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/discovery-info.html

Discovery One

Okay- so "The shuttle shares a name with Discovery One, the fictional femur-shaped Jupiter spaceship from the films 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact."

is incorrect. The space shuttle which was femur-shaped is not Discovery One, which doesn't appear until later in the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.199.131 (talk • contribs)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I closed the gap at the top, but seem to have created one near the bottom. Easily solveable if one image, possibly the last one, were removed. Do we really need that one?--Kross^Talk 01:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it. Who's da man!? :D--Kross^Talk 01:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

STS-121 delayed

STS-121 has been delayed. The article needs to be updated. Gamerzworld 19:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore, they are planning to launch it today, at 12:38 p.m. EST. My two cents. Bad idea, with crack in the foam. Casual Karma 10:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's only a tiny crack, and the foam has since fallen off. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 14:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd Tag: Which "person"?

This article presently starts with the tag " This article documents a person who is currently in space. Information may change rapidly as the mission progresses. "

But it is an article about a spacecraft, not a person, and in fact there are several persons on it. A tag which says the article documents a spacecraft currently in space would make sense, but the present tag is annoyingm and it should be removed.Edison 14:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

STS-114 and 121 sections

Unless we intend to add these for all missions, I suggest these are removed. They have their own articles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I always thought that these were kind of out of place as well... SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Operational" vs. "Grounded for maintenance"

Without a citation, "grounded for maintenance" is no good. To me, "Grounded for maintenance" is something more significant than simply prepping for the next flight. By that logic, all three shuttles are presently "grounded for maintenance". Also, as far as precedent goes, we changed Endeavour to operational again after it completed the Orbiter Major Modification Period back during the summer. However, it has not flown since the refit. "Operational" therefore simply describes it as being on the "active" roster. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the first sentence to the craft being 1 of 5 operational shuttles built for NASA and 1 of 3 still in use. Some youngsters might not know about the accidents and think only 3 were built. Not a big deal, but that's my change. Remember September 11, 2001 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Images

There are too many images at the end of the article. It looks pretty messy. Can someone please spread them out throughout the article --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I at least made them a bit smaller again. Don't have time to look at it any further now, but I think we might need a gallery here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 09:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Launch status legend

I changed the legend to NASA's format NASA Missions website

Legend: + Targeted For | * No Earlier Than (Tentative) | ** To Be Determined

for consistency. I suggest adding it to Atlantis and Endeavor.

Also, I suggest formatting the Launch schedule table on those articles to this article's standard of appearance for consistency, and because this article's Launch table looks clearest and cleanest. If nobody does it first or objects, I will get on it in a day or so. Comments? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Endeavour article has Launch Pad and Landing site columns. For the three Shuttle launch tables to be made consistent, then Discovery and Atlantis would need these columns too. Can this info be found? Otherwise those columns would need to be zapped and I don't think removing good info from Wiki is a good idea. Any thoughts?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Current status" section

I have finally decided to be bold and remove the "current status" section in this article. As I see it, this is not particularly notable for a general article about the orbiter itself. This is part of the normal course of affairs for a space shuttle, being moved around by various means from the OPF to the VAB to the launch pad, to space, to the ISS, to Edwards, and back to Kennedy. Where the orbiter is at any given moment is not notable in an article giving general information on the orbiter itself. It may, however, be notable to include such information in an article about the mission that the orbiter is being prepared for. In other words, for instance, STS-121 vs. Space Shuttle Discovery.

The only time when an orbiter's location should be included on the article about the orbiter itself is when it is permanently located somewhere, such as Space Shuttle Enterprise, where it is permanently on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center. Otherwise, each time the orbiter is moved to a different facility as part of the normal course of the operation of the space shuttle program is simply not notable for a more general article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that details about the orbiter's upcoming mission needn't be in the article. The trouble is that except for a brief description of Discovery as being "currently operational," the article gives a reader almost no sense of where the orbiter is, who is interacting with it, and how they're using it. Why isn't this contextual information about the orbiter "notable"? What notability criterion is appropriate to apply here? The processing flow you describe is well known to STS fans, but we can't assume our readers are familiar with it. By omitting a "Current status" section (or something equivalent), we are implicitly asking readers who want that context to look between entries 35 and 36 in the "Flights listing" section. Is that truly reasonable? (sdsds - talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't describe the workflow involved, in detail, in getting a shuttle through a mission cycle. That should be well-described, referenced, and placed somewhere, such as in Space Shuttle, Space Shuttle program, or an entirely new article if enough information can be found, and linked in a relevant section or a "See also" section. On the general article about a shuttle vehicle, where the orbiter happens to be at any given time is not particularly notable. It's like how we don't do it for cruise ships or any other vehicle that is used for multiple trips. One could conceivably include in an article about the SS Cruise Ship (for instance), a "current status" section showing when the ship is underway and at sea, at port, in dry-dock, etc. But we don't do that, because the individual movements of a ship in going on a cruise, docking, and undergoing maintenance are not notable. In the space shuttle's case, the process is notable, and I think one could easily write a well-referenced article about the process of preparing the shuttle for a mission, even though the individual movements are not.

As far as "context" goes, these sections took the process out of context because it just dumped the information at the top of the article without any other explanation of the process. The process would only be followed that way by following the page history and watching that section change. So I'm not buying the "context" argument. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the section removal, but perhaps it would be appropriate to have a field added to the infobox that would be something like 'Current location', and could be filled in with "OPF" or "LC 39-A" or "In orbit". Just a thought. It does seem to me, that until the shuttles are retired, their current location is a valid item to have in the infobox. Ariel♥Gold 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

ISS Crew Expansion

(Table) This will not occur during the August 2009 flight, for an obvious reason. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Battlestar Discovery

Back in the 1980s, I read a newspaper article stating that the Discovery had picked up a nickname of "Battlestar Discovery" because of its frequent use in military missions. GBC (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Discovery's name

How did the Space Shuttle "Discovery" get its name?

Third paragraph of the article:

"The spacecraft takes its name from two ships of exploration named Discovery — HMS Discovery, a ship that accompanied explorer James Cook on his third and final major voyage and Henry Hudson's ship Discovery which he used 1610–1611 to search for a Northwest Passage. The shuttle shares a name with Discovery, the spaceship from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey."

Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thats one hell of a discussion. -- Cat ^chi? 22:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is strictly true - the NASA page here implies that the Shuttle was named after Cook's discovery, but the name was shared by other ships, including Hudson's (and RRS Discovery, which I woke up next to this morning. As you do.) Shimgray 14:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made some small changes to reflect this; it seemed odd not to mention one of the vessels which we had a page on... Shimgray 14:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wasn't it named after that ship in 2001 a Space Odyssey? I mean Kubrick made that movie back in the 60s, and this shuttle was first commissioned in the 80s, so it wasn't the other way around or anything. They do that kind of thing all the time, I mean, think about enterprise, it's a chicken and the egg kind of thing, and a lot of people get it backwards -- Kubrick,Stanley 12:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. I would hope that NASA would have more sense then to name it after a fictional ship that undergoes a disaster where there was only one survivor. Well, two if you consider the god-awful deus ex machina in 3001. Wolfhound668 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's iconic nevertheless, and NASA is not above pop-culture references in shuttle names (it named the test-item Enterprise, after all...) Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Without a reliable source stating that about the film, it's OR. Please provide a verifiable reliable source befre re-adding such information. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it named after that ship in 2001 a Space Odyssey? - the book was actually written by Arthur C. Clarke, who named his fictional spaceship after the RRS Discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.51.238 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations

The entire chart of Discovery flights is missing citations. I added a citation to the 39th flight; however, I have not figured out how to have the name of a citation appear in the bottom of the page. Can anyone tell me how to do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Vesey (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Broken links

I am unaware of how to fix links, but in the first paragraph two links are broken and link to the wrong page.

The last two Space Shuttles, namely Atlantis and Endeavour, remain operational. Both of the two Orbiters will be retired after their final missions, namely STS-134 for Endeavour and STS-135 for Atlantis, the final mission for the winding Space Shuttle program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.165.133 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Links go to proper pages now!--NavyBlue84 18:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Is Space Shuttle Discovery a woman?

Someone (112.204.90.26) changed all occurences of "it" to "she" in the entire article, almost 3 weeks ago (one of the revisions). Is there something I don't know? Danim (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with that particular edit. It actually improved the article. Not once was it changed to she. Maybe you could provide the other edits in question. Also, it is common for the shuttles to be referred to as she. Even NASA PAO refers to them as female.--NavyBlue84 00:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The guideline that WPSHIPS follows is that both "she" and "it" are valid pronouns for referring to ships in the Englisgh language, and that articles should follow the usage of the first editor of the article to use a pronoun. I see no reason that that usage should not be followed in this article. I'll check the early history of the article to see what the first uage was. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Per this diff, the first personal pronoun used was of neutral gender. As such I'm going to revert back to that usage, as there has been no consensus on this talk page to chage the gender used to refer to Discovery. If the consensus changes, then so be it, but until then, the gender should remain neutral. - BilCat (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be the first edit in which the gender was changed, on March 15, 2011, by User:112.204.90.26. - BilCat (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I didn't know that, and it was a bit weird for me. I personally think article looks better after BilCat's edits. Danim (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Discovery's Flight Deck

It would be very interesting to have all the dials and switches and controls on the Discovery's Flight Deck Explained. I just saw a 360 view of the Flight Deck and couldn't make heads or tails out of anything. Seems like it would be helpful if we could get an astronaut pilot to explain them to us. See http://360vr.com/2011/06/22-discovery-flight-deck-opf_6236/index.html We would get a better appreciation for what the astronauts have to learn. 75.139.176.30 (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Otis

Photos from today - Discovery flies over DC

Hi everyone. I have uploaded my photographs from Discovery's fly over Washington, D.C. en route to its new home at the National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center. Perhaps one will fit someplace in the article (or perhaps not!). But, FYI: Commons:Category:Space Shuttle Discovery over Washington, D.C. - Enjoy! Sarah (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 30, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The United States Space Shuttle Discovery had its maiden flight on August 30, 1984. Its final mission was almost twenty-seven years later. Discovery spent a total of almost a year in space. Its missions helped to assemble the International Space Station, and it flew the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit. The shuttle was decommissioned on March 9, 2011. Today Discovery is on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.Photo: NASA; edit: John O'Neill

First and Last Flights

As with the articles on all of the Space Shuttle Orbiters' pages, The First flight is indicated by the date and mission of the Orbiters' respective launch into orbit around the Earth from Launch Complex 39 in Florida. The Last Flight on each page for the Orbiters designates the Ferry Flight from Kennedy Space Center or the Smithsonian, so its final location. This introduces inconsistencies with the information. As such, that should mean the First Flight would be the Ferry Flight from Edwards AFB in California (Air Force Plant 42 as the exception for Space Shuttle Endeavour) to Kennedy Space Center, Florida. It would seem most appropriate that the First Flight be designated as the Orbiter's first launch to orbit, and the Last Flight be that of its final trip into orbit as they are designated only for space flight and were not powered during atmospheric flights on board the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. The Ferry Flights should either be indicated separately in a section of each Orbiters' Wiki Article or introduced under a respective heading in the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft Wiki Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.82 (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

landing locations

I notice on the other shuttle pages the table of missions includes where the shuttle landed. this info is missing on the "Space Shuttle Discovery" page thanks Skippypeanuts (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)