Talk:STS-121/Archive 1

December 2005
Currently the article isn't big enough for more than one image, especially with the factbox, so I was hesitant to place the first image there. Once there is more information, however, I'd like to tell people that there is a pretty good image of the crew at STS-121_crew.jpg if a second image is needed. Andromeda321 22:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems likely that STS-121 will not make the May launch window due to the fact that a launch-on-demand shuttle will not be ready for a possible rescue mission. July 2006 now seems a more likely launch date.Subzero788 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Countdown Clock
Is the countdown really currently at T-99 Days 23 Hours 59 Minutes 59 Seconds and Holding like suggests? If it is at T-99 Days, etc, then wouldn't it have to be launching sometime in June 2006 at the minimum? DarthVader 00:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, the window for the launch has been changed until July 2006. It was changed just a few hours after I wrote this question. DarthVader 22:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is holding then the count is not running... ---GW_Simulations |User Page 18:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rescue Ball
Does anyone know if they are taking a Personal Rescue Enclosure (An article which at the time of writing needs to be written!)- see http://www.astronautix.com/craft/reseball.htm
 * No (Answering my own question - according to http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000207.html it has never flown)Richard Taylor 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Video footage of takeoff?
Can anyone upload a footage or at minimum provide an externel link to the takeoff video? 89.0.206.131 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Columbia
"Before the accident, Columbia had been assigned to missions STS-118 and STS-121. The STS-118 mission, also an International Space Station flight, was, at first, re-assigned to Discovery, but has since been assigned to Space Shuttle Endeavour."

Columbia Can flight to ISS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.46.112 (talk • contribs) 12:36, July 5, 2006 (UTC).
 * WP:NOT a discussion forum. -- WC Quidditch   &#9742;  &#9998;  13:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that question as a legitimate question on the content of this article. This statement in this article is correct. See the Space Shuttle Columbia for notes on its unique spacelock which was used for ISS flights. Rmhermen 14:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

July 4th attempt
If NASA says that they are go for launch, how about a "daytime version" of fireworks? Launch time (estimated, planned) should be at 2:38 PM EDT/11:38 AM PDT. -- Big  top  ( tk | ea | cb | em | n k | tk:  n  k ) 03:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're go ahead for launch. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 18:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This was indeed the best "firework" I saw on July 4th. It indeed looked a lot like a super sized roman candle. Jon 14:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

APU?
This term is used a few times but is unexplained. Can someone clarify its meaning. --Atrian 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Auxilliary Power Unit. There are three redundant APU's on the shuttle providing hydraulic
 * pressure to some systems during powered ascent, reentry and landing. There is a wikipedia
 * link here. --Ma11achy 16:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Orbit parameters
I just updated the section on mission parameters and noticed it was in conflict with the infobox at the top. So a couple of points Joffan 22:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the apogee/altitude should be at least that of the ISS, definitely over 300km - my figures in the main text are taken from the ISS article which is probably a fraction out of date but not by much.
 * we probably only need the information once - in the infobox? - but obviously it should be accurate.

Passive voice
This article is chock-full of passive voice. If anyone knows who the subjects of most of these sentences are, could you please add them? Perhaps "NASA technicians" would suffice for most cases. --Doradus 16:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a matter of style. Personally, I think that if the source is considered reliable, then Wikipedia should just state it as true and provide a citation. If the editors disagree, then fine, state the source. If there is disagreement about the Truth, then state the sources. Otherwise, state it as True &mdash; editors focusing on verification can worry about re-evaluating a the reliability of the source. It is more repsectful of the reader's time and results in higher-quality prose to just state the Truth when it is known from a reliable source. Again, citations must be provided. -- 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

An award! Congratulations!
-> JamieJones  talk 02:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Disintegration"?
"The mission lasted for almost 13 days total before disintegrating in the atmosphere above North America on July 17, 2006 at approximately 9:14:43 AM EDT. All 7 crew members were lost."

This statement seems extremely misleading. --71.126.183.121 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. It was a "joke" by User:Richard Burr. --Bricktop 07:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted a similar edit on July 1st. --GW_Simulations |User Page 21:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

CDT vs. EDT. vs. UTC
It seems strange to use CDT for the landing timeline, considering local time was EDT.. more generally, we should come to a concensus about it; this would regard changes to all STS missions, and should be discussed here. Mlm42 08:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)