Talk:STS-131/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Duration of STS 131

Currently this page reports that the duration of the STS 131 flight will be 11 days. However in [1] it is reported that

"She is scheduled to travel to the International Space Station (ISS) for about 14 days on the Atlantis in February 2010, or later"

Can anyone clarify on the exact duration of the STS 131 flight? 140.159.2.32 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the manifest may change significantly between now and 2010, as well as the objectives of the flight, it is not possible to speculate any further until the time is closer and the flight plan is refined by NASA. Ariel♥Gold 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

STS-131 is a 13 day flight on shuttle Discovery. On nasa.gov Discovery is the orbiter who will fly this mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opelzafira (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

131 is only a 12 day mission. It also has an extension day should it be needed.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Acronyms

The pages states "perform an R&R on an ammonia tank assembly outside the station and return a LWAPA plate, located on the Columbus module". Can some one explain what is a R&R (in relation to the tank assembly) and define what LWAPA stands for ? 137.132.250.13 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the R&R statement. R&R stands for Remove & Repair or Remove & Replace (the latter being true here). As for LWAPA, it is an experiment located outside of the Columbus module. I can't find a link about it, I am sure there is one somewhere, I just can't find it. (comment was from Januaray, guess I forgot to sign it)--NavyBlue84 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I found what LWAPA stands for (Lightweight Adapter Plate Assembly) See http://kibo.jaxa.jp/en/mission/1ja/1ja_news/fd8_eva3.html. Thanks a lot for explaining what R&R stands for

137.132.250.13 (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Crew

Is this the first mission to include three women crewmembers? Niki2006 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this the first time two Japanese astronauts are in space at the same time ? Hektor (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

First time 3 female crew members on the same vehicle, but I don't think this is the first time 3 women have been in space together. As for 2 Japanese astro's, I don't believe it is the first time, but I could be wrong.--NavyBlue84 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

On a separate note the Japanese press is making a big deal about Naoko Yamazaki, in that she is apparently the first Japanese mother to go into space. I think she wrote a book about her experiences and the strain it put on her relationship with her husband. There are still some very old-fashioned ideas about women in the workplace in Japan, and he had to quit his job and stay home with the kid due to her having to move to Huston and whatnot. I could find refs in the Japanese media about this and put it into the notes section of this article and/or her article. But I'm wondering if its relevant enough. Any thoughts? Colincbn (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is better suited to her article. If you have the ref's and want to add it go ahead, all these first time things are neat.--NavyBlue84 01:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; any deep discussion should be reserved for her article. I might add a small note here after I do that. I'm at work now (I just saw this on the morning news) so I'll get to it sometime today. Colincbn (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting trivial?

While one can understand a bit of enthusiasm, it seems that some of the facts reported here are pretty trivial, such as the name of each day's wake-up music. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a reasonable discussion to have, but take into account that there is a casually established consensus that we include wake-up calls on shuttle mission pages - most of the articles include them - see STS-122, STS-119, STS-124, STS-130 etc. Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Like Jatkins said, all of the recent missions from STS-114 on have them and a lot of older missions have them, the older ones could use lots of work, but I disagree that it is not trivial. What other things do you think are trivial?--NavyBlue84 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the time of "go for sleep", the number of post-Challenger missions (after the first, anyway), for example. I don't see that the "other articles have them" argument holds water; that just makes sure that they all have the same flaw. One needs to think if these facts will have true relevance in a year's time.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The go for sleep thing is trivial, as they are not really given a "go for sleep" call. They are just told goodnight by capcomm. As for the number of post Challenger missions, if you remove it you need to remove post Columbia stuff too. As for the relevance, not only will it be relevant in 1 year, but it will be in 10 years. The space shuttle has made major contributions, or helped make major contributions in so many different areas from astronomy to biological sciences and so many others, that it will probably never be forgotten. The whole triviality of that section has also been discussed (can't remember where or when, I believe it was a couple missions ago).--NavyBlue84 02:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

EVA table information for EVA 3

The EVA table section on EVA 3 needs to be updated for the fact that it has already happened. However, I am leery to do this myself, as the prior information includes plans for the spacewalkers to do some work on Dextre, and I cannot find any information on whether that work was done, or if it was postponed to a later mission or a station-hosted spacewalk - the writeup for Flight Day 9 only mentions the ATA work on the spacewalk, and I don't see any mention of either completion or postponement on the NASA press release page. John Darrow (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I will update it in a bit, unless you want too. Dextre and work on a burnt out light on a camera was deffered to another EVA (not yet determind which one, probably STS-132 but could be pushed into an Expedition EVA). The bulk of the EVA 3 was ATA, MMOD stuff. The LWAPA is now not returning on STS-131, it was also pushed off the plate to another mission, maybe STS-132 but not for sure. I think LWAPA was mentioned in the press release, but I can't remember. Feel free to update it, if not I will get to it later.--NavyBlue84 17:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Video thumbnails

Just in case anyone was wondering, the corrupt video thumbnails (the videos themselves should play fine) are due to an error in MediaWiki (see [2]), but hopefully it will be resolved in the near future. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on STS-131. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 04:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)