Talk:STS-3xx

Shuttle-to-Shuttle docking
According to the STS-125 rescue section, ""It could require a shuttle-to-shuttle docking, where the rescue shuttle is above the damaged shuttle but upside down and facing the other direction so a docking is possible""

This is not possible. Even if the shuttles are facing in opposite directions, they will still not be able to dock, as the forward structure of the orbiters would obstruct docking. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is one of the options NASA was evaluating, there is a picture showing shuttle-to-shuttle docking. See here. I agree that it isn't the most likely scenario (more likely the crew would be transfered via the OBSS in EVA suits), but it was something mentioned. There has to be a more recent (and public) document on the plans for the rescue mission, I'd think. What would be best, is that we get ahold of that, and simply reword the information, lol. I agree that the situation is not likely, but it is probably possible, with some modifications made ahead of time if needed. Feel free to reword the section to remove that if you like, GW :) Ariel ♥  Gold  17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm still not convinced, but I'll leave it as is for now. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm with you, that it is unlikely, but it was one of the scenarios they looked at initially. I'll have to do some digging around and see if there are any more recent public documents about this, and if so, we could nuke that whole sentence altogether, because I really think that in the unlikely event that this rescue mission is done, the more likely transfer process would be done via the series of EVAs. (Did you look at that one picture, with all the happy faces on the rescue shuttle after they were moved? That picture is hilarious!) Feel free to remove the whole sentence, honestly, but I just put the ref there, instead of having the dubious tag, so it showed it was an option they looked at. :o) Ariel ♥  Gold  19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this sound for a rewrite of the section (Based on the 16:50, 1 December 2007 revision of the article):

STS-125 is a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission. As Hubble is in a different orbit to the International Space Station, there is no option for a shuttle crew to use the ISS as a safe haven, and therefore NASA developed a plan to conduct a shuttle-to-shuttle rescue mission, similar to proposed rescue missions for pre-ISS flights. This rescue mission, designated STS-400, will be launched only ten days after call up, if neccesary, as the maximum time the crew can remain on the damaged shuttle is 23 days. For this mission, the rescue shuttle (currently planned to be Endeavour) will be rolled to its launch pad about two weeks before the STS-125 shuttle, creating a rare scenario of two shuttles being on the launch pads at the same time. The mission would probably follow a similar procedure to the pre-ISS era plan, as outlined above. Three different mission plans were drawn up. The first is to use a shuttle-to-shuttle docking, where the rescue shuttle is docks with the damaged shuttle by flying upside down and backwards, relative to the damaged shuttle. It is unclear whether this is practical as the forward structure of either orbiter could collide with the payload bay of the other, resulting in damage to both orbiters. The second option is for the rescue orbiter to rendezvous with the damaged orbiter, and perform stationkeeping whilst using its RMS to transfer crew from the damaged orbiter. This mission plan would result in heavy fuel consumption. The third concept is for the damaged orbiter to grapple the rescue orbiter using its RMS, eliminating the need for stationkeeping. The rescue orbiter would then transfer crew using its RMS, as in the second option. This concept is more fuel efficient than stationkeeping. The rescue orbiter would then land normally, and the damaged orbiter would either be disposed of through a destructive re-entry over the Pacific, or if the damage allows, landed at Vandenberg or White Sands using the AORP system. If you think this is a good idea, please go ahead and replace the existing section. I saw the picture that you mentioned. I like those little faces, especially the one at the end of the first row in the bottom section. Do you think it would be worth making a vector image similar to that (with or without faces), for this article. I could probably throw one together in about an hour, if you think it would be a good idea. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL Well, there are a ton of smileys already on Commons, see User:ArielGold/Smilies, lol. But, I guess we'd have to ask, would it be appropriate to add that kind of image, before the actual procedure is official? I think that entry above is absolutely excellently written, succinct, concise, explanatory and accurate. Why was it changed? lol. Feel free to replace the current section with the above, I think t hat's an excellent alternative, that also explains the issues of the unlikely shuttle-to-shuttle docking. I'd love to see the image you could create, you could make it, even if we don't use it yet, I'd love to see it, lol. I loved how there were 7 frownie faces on one side, then EVAs, then at the end, 11 happy faces on the other orbiter, lol. Ariel ♥  Gold  00:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found a slightly more up-to-date source, here. I will check it to see what else has changed before I update the article, but I think it would be best if I do that when I'm a little less tired (at the moment I'm averaging about 7 typos per sentence!). If you want to do it in the meantime, feel free. I've started drafting the image, and I will let you know when it is done. It will be an SVG, so it can easily be changed as things are finalised. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 00:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, awesome find on that source GW!! Yes that's much better, from last month, instead of last year, lol. I'll let you write it up, no real rush, and I cannot wait to see your version of the image explaining the transfer via EVAs! You rock! (P.S. I added the new reference already, it is the last one of the paragraph, so all you have to do is reword stuff.) Ariel ♥  Gold  01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes. I have also finished drafting the image, and the inital version is shown to the right, the black rectangle seems to be some form of bug. It shouldn't be there, and I am trying to figure out why it appears and how to remove it, but I didn't put it there. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OMIGOSH GW! That is so awesome, lol! Seriously, that's just so helpfully informative, excellent! Now, let's hope that's the final decision they go with, so we can use that picture! I have one suggestion: The very last image, where they are all on the rescue shuttle, please make everyone have a happy face, lol. For the purposes of the illustration, I think it would be good, as all crewmembers would be on board that orbiter, so differentiation really isn't needed. Ariel ♥  Gold  23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New STS-400 article?
I think the fact that the STS-125 rescue mission requires a shuttle on the pad, a new page should be made as this article is getting very long more details can be provided on the new page. What do you think? -- zrulli 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also add that this page includes orbital inclination angle, Flight day, et cetra that are different for "STS-400". -- zrulli 21:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - good idea. It also eliminates the problem of the non-applicable title. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've drafted an STS-400 article here. Feel free to tweak it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! I'm going to hunt around for some additional sources and new info but this looks really good! -- zrulli 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Support - I like the draft. Should I create the page? Nat682 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd leave it until tomorrow, and if there are still no objections, use the move option to rename the draft. That avoids GFDL issues. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 09:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Post STS-125/STS-400
Does any one have any info on possible rescue mission designations for missions after STS-125? For example a rescue mission if needed for STS-126 would be STS-401 and a subset of the STS-119 crew would be on board. I think that this information is important if it can be found and verified.--Navy blue84 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * STS-400 is Hubble Rescue only due to Orbit parameters. After 125/400 there will be the normal 3xx names. So STS-126 rescue would be STS-319--Hendrikharry (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ADD: A complete list is @ STS-3xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrikharry (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually STS-119 would rescue STS-126 since NASA still plans on carrying out the STS-119 mission even if it is used as a rescue mission Dan (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

re: separate article for STS-135 This may be a very special mission, a complete shuttle that will not be used. 207.102.64.202 (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Remote Control Orbiter NASA resource
Here is a useful resource from NASA on the Remote Control Orbiter. -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Remote Control Buran
After finding the Buran stuff edited out, I hunted for citations on Buran's "remote control" to edit it back in :-) I also found one of the pages I referenced. This has a chilling realistic animation of what ending all life on the southern border of the United States would look like using Buran.  Worth a peek, and interesting to note the nuclear delivery devices looks a lot like the Boeing_X-37. Lent (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * while buran's nuclear capabilities are interesting, i dont think they need to be mentioned in the section about remote control. they probably belong on the buran page 99.108.140.97 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. Main Buran article would make more sense. Thanks. Lent (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Buran's hypothetical "nuclear bombing" capabilities are completely irrelevant to this article. Furthermore, a random web page does not constitute a legitimate source. The so-called "chilling realistic animation" of bombing the southern USA could have been produced by any idiot. 205.178.116.76 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct, this belongs (if true) over on the Buran page. Yup, random web page is not a good source. I was fooled by the ".com" part of the "http://www.buran-energia.com" and the level of technical documentation on the site. I assumed it an official site of the company S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia. My mistake.
 * Interestingly, another source says that the BOR-4 was the nuclear delivery vehicle to be carried inside the Buran shuttles : http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1067961/russian_tv_describes_military_goal_of_buran_reusable_spacecraft_nuclear/.
 * This matches what is shown on the http://www.buran-energia.net/img/starwars.gif page. Lent (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on STS-3xx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071202131150/http://atc.nasa.gov:80/news/entry/1347 to http://atc.nasa.gov/news/entry/1347

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on STS-3xx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109042847/http://www.hipstersunite.com:80/nasa/Launch_Schedule.pdf to http://www.hipstersunite.com/nasa/Launch_Schedule.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811090404/http://www.hq.nasa.gov:80/pao/FOIA/FRRdocs/05_foi.pdf to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/FOIA/FRRdocs/05_foi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on STS-3xx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723042544/http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf to http://mynasa.nasa.gov/pdf/149873main_sts121_press_kit.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hipstersunite.com/nasa/Launch_Schedule.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/FOIA/FRRdocs/05_foi.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707073317/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011 to http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)