Talk:STS-3xx/Archive 1

Why would they jettison the dead shuttle so early on
Why would they jettison the dead shuttle so early on - it appears to me that would close options as then if for some reason the rescue shuttle didn't arrive they'd really be stuck? - at least with the dead shuttle docked if there was no other chance of survival they could patch it up and have a go at re-entry??


 * As I understand it, there are three options in a rescue of this type
 * 1. Have the crippled shuttle attached to the shuttle while the rescue vehicle docks at a different point (Possibly the Soyuz hatch)
 * Never had two shuttles attached to station before.
 * The combined weight would affect the station orbit. (unsure of total weight of 2 shuttles + station)
 * Weight is totally irrelevant. The station is scheduled to grow by many more tons as half a dozen more modules and trusses are added. --NeilFraser 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Abandon the crippled shuttle when the rescue vehicle arrives
 * Nasa would have to track station + rescue + damaged while performing normal (complex + risky) docking operations.


 * 3. Abandon the crippled shuttle early on and allow it to burn up before a rescue vehicle is launched
 * NASA would be under so much pressure to "get it right" at this point they would almost certainly have to eliminate the risk of two shuttle crashing into each other.
 * In addition to the damaged shuttle as a risk their are thousands of heat shield tiles that could be (or believed to be) floating in its vicinity (Up to several miles). Anyone of those (at that speed) could punch a hole in the rescue or the station.
 * Speeds are relative. In the absence of an explosion, any debris would be quietly drifting away at a few cm/s.  Additionally, the rarefied atmosphere would quietly sweep away the low-density stuff. -- NeilFraser 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The shuttle program would certainly be dead anyways.
 * If a rescue shuttle could not be launched a Russian Soyuz rescue is possible

While the crippled shuttle could be used as additional living quarters on the cramped station I think NASA would choose option 3. --mitrebox 20:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Some incorrect information on this article, firstly Discovery will be the rescue vehicle for the Atlantis flight STS-121, pad 39-B will be used for launch, as 39-A is still undergoing repair work and cannot support a shuttle launch, and the current plan, although that may have now change after the foam falling from Discovery's external tank is that only STS-114 and STS-121 are to have rescue missions available.

Russian Soyuz Craft cannot be used to rescue a crew, 3 would be needed (assuming current ISS crew leave as well), they take about 6 months to manufacture - the process could not be completed in time.

And in response to "why would they jettison the shuttle so early on", this is necessary since once the fuel cells have been depleted they could not jettison the shuttle and could not perform a controlled re-entry.


 * Due to the design of the shuttle's docking port, I think there is only one port on the ISS that it can use. --GW_Simulations 14:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Of limit theory they might want to use it upthere still.. what do you mean with 1000's of heat tiles, its not falling apart is it? or do you mean the implication it might be remains of challenger? ALso the nasa spokesman says they have been letting water out, wich is not the official policy, so they either leaked it or had a leak. I think its an eufemism and some water leaks while attaching. Possibly due to the use of the motors in manouvring. Anyway the object shown has an irrestible square shape and the astronauts pictures aren't publicly available. Mind us, it can still be its all a show, now they are quitte sure of the proper functioning of the whole tool. I wouldn't be surprised by such a desperate (and unnecessary ) act to catch the attention once more. Its quitte obvious we, the public, relate best to the launching and landing events and one might want us to be (financially) more commited.80.57.242.54 22:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there are two PMAs (docking ports for the shuttle) available on ISS, but they are both at the US end of the station and although they are pointed at 90 degrees from each other, two shuttles would not fit at once. The only other place they could put a shuttle is hanging off in space at the end of the station's arm. --NeilFraser 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Two items haven't been mentioned in this (admittedly old) conversation. 1: A 2-second burst from a shuttle RCS thruster is enough to cripple station (geometrically...strength of components, etc...). While this hasn't happened while docked, even with the RCS computers deactivated, thrust events have been recorded. 2: While weight is irrelevant as stated above, mass is not irrelevant. The CMGs still need to orient station and they're not strong enough to with the added mass of a shuttle. Although I imagine the Russian thrusters would help, there may be load/geometry problems with that (causing the same damage an errant RCS event could...). Porkrind 05:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Crew for landing
Can the shuttle cope with 11 crew members for landing, the 7 from STS-121 plus the 4 from STS-300?

Take out the scientific equiptment, and put in fold-down seats. Shouldn't be too difficult. All 300 crew on the flight deck, the rest on the middeck. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it now says modification to the rescue shuttle have to be made to accommodate landing with 11 people on board. But why does the rescue shuttle need four crew members? Its job is only to get in orbit, dock with the ISS, undock, and land. If the rescued crew are alright, they can land a shuttle, so it only needs to get in orbit and dock. The Buran could probably do it empty, but a shuttle commander should be able to do it alone. Or a commander and a pilot, if all procedures assume both front seats are always occupied. What is the purpose of the other two rescue crew? Zeev.tarantov (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The shuttle needs 4 people to launch. The Commander, Pilot and mission specialists 1 & 2. MS 1 & 2 serve as flight engineers (only MS2 has the designation, as they have more duty and responsibility then MS1). The 2 mission specialists help flip switches, write down and call out milestones to the pilot and commander. The shuttles can not be docked manually, they can fly automatically, and that is what the only Braun did the one time it flew before being destroyed, and what the shuttles do on every mission during launch and and the rest of the mission except during docking, undocking and landing.--Navy blue84 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Buran launched and landed empty, perfectly, the one time it flew. It was destroyed by its hanger collapsing 14 years later, which is irrelevant. I asked what is the job of the mission specialists in launch, docking and landing. Launch, as I understand it, is not controlled by the crew. If the docking is automatic, how many crew does it take to perform orbital maneuvers? And why can't a two person crew land it, the way airliners and bombers land? You answered "flipping switches" and "calling out milestones", which sounds lame, even if it's 100% correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeev.tarantov (talk • contribs) 07:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The crew for the most part is hands off during launch. They do throw some switches, like switching TAL sites and entering new info into the computers. Docking and rendezvous requires at least 4 people, commander to physically fly the orbiter, pilot to help in flipping switches and call out procedures and talk to the ground, one mission specialist to call distance, speed and rates and one to operate the Orbiter Docking System. Landing is not automated for the shuttle, it can be, but is not. The commander flies the shuttle with assistance from the pilot and MS 2 and a little from MS 1. MS 1 also calls out milestones and helps with flipping switches and making sure the pilot and commander haven't missed anything, plus they can see everything and can help find what alarm is going off and why. It is more complicated then that, and there is lots more going on, but that is the basics. Also if you go here you can see the flight data files from STS-128.--NavyBlue84 14:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Rescue Ball
I think the rescue ball option for the pre - iss era is incorrect. The article makes it seem like this was a valid option. According to this site hosted by NASA it was just prototype and never made any flights. Any suggestion on how to talk about the rescue ball but not give the impression that it was an option????

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2002-000207.html

Article Title
I think Wikipedia is best served by a single article covering all the STS-300 type missions. STS-301, and any other specific mission designations should link to this article. Perhaps the article should be moved to STS-300 type missions, STS-30x or Contingency Shuttle Crew Support? I don't think that's justified yet. Richard Taylor 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah - something's wrong here. A renaming could be appropriate, but I think a better solution would be to make sure that ONLY STS-300 information is here and STS-301 and later information split off.  This would require, though, two sections... one from the era that ALL rescue missions would have been STS-300, and another specifically for the STS-121 rescue.  Just as there's a "template" for the non-rescue missions, I think a better general format should be developed for STS-3xx missions and an article created for each.  With STS-301 redirecting to STS-300, some things just don't make sense as it stands now. --Fumo7887 04:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Creating an article for each STS-3xx mission will result in a set of largely similar articles, with a lot of the key information being common to them all. The basic plan for a launch on demand rescue mission should be described in only one article, that leaves only the crew allocations and vehicle as as the unique content for article on specific missions. 86.6.10.96 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As Contingency Shuttle Crew Support refers to the entire rescue operation, including the accomidations for staying onboard the ISS, I'm not sure if that would be the appropriate name for this article. What about splitting this into two daughter articles?  One called Contingency Shuttle Crew Support refering to the entire procedure, and one titled either STS-3xx or Space Shuttle Rescue Mission refering to that specific portion of the plan, including possible crews, vehicles, etc.  Articles such as STS-300, STS-301, etc. could then be redirected to that general page.  I'm not quite sure I'm ready to offer this up as an official proposal yet, just looking for input. --Fumo7887 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure why it refers to STS-121 constantly in the article if it is for any shuttle rescue. Im going to make it say STS-xxx rather than STS-121. Actually this article is poorly written as the tag suggets. It should not be written for up coming mission but rather any misson so the artice does not go out of date every few month --Zrulli 23:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

When it really happens we will get a nice title (noro i suggest) or oro (nasa) orbital rescue operation perhaps soro, soyuz orbital rescue operation. since it would take 6 months to make a soyuz it would take like a month more to make two, and in between we'll lanch some ballistics with oxygen, won't we? sporo:) space shuttle orbital rescue operation, or even diasporo, if that one fails similarly. sorry for the humor.80.57.242.54 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move - July 2006
THIS DEBATE CLOSED See "Debate Consolidation" section below...

STS-300 → Space Shuttle Rescue Mission … Rationale: STS-300 is too specific of a name and the article has been expanded to include information on ALL rescue flights. Renaming the article would have to be done in conjunction with an article rewrite, removing references to the specific STS-300 mission within the text, but including basic information (ship, crew, etc.) on STS-300, -301, etc, in an organized fashion SEPERATE from the article text. … Please share your opinion at Talk:STS-300. — Fumo7887 03:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support Cjosefy 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current name follows the convention for artciles on the shuttle.  Vegaswikian 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As the proposal will result in a number of articles - one for each STS-3xx mission which will have no substantive content. Richard Taylor

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * I think this is a good idea. I'm not sold on the name, but that's ok.  I would also suggest that we not create new pages for each STS-3XX mission, but rather redirect them to the appropriate regular mission pages (i.e. STS-317-->STS-117) since they are just a subset of the regular missions, and put specific rescue mission details on that page. Cjosefy 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with the name is that there isn't an official name for one of these missions. Although "Contingency Shuttle Crew Support" refers to the entire procedure, including the crew staying onboard the ISS, there is not title refering specifically to the associated STS-3xx mission.  The closest reference I can find in any NASA documentation is refering to a "rescue mission" (lower case). --Fumo7887 19:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On the official launch schedules, the flights are referred to as Contingency Shuttle Crew Support. I would support having an article called this that describes the entire procedure and then the only other articles needed would be for each STS-3xx (and those could just be redirects to the proper actual missions). Cjosefy 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made edits to STS-116 to reflict what I feel is a reasonable alternative to having dedicated pages for each STS-3xx mission. STS-301 now redirects to 116. Cjosefy 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * STS-301 is NOT a modified version of STS-116. Those missions aren't even associated with eachother.  (The rescue mission for STS-116 is STS-303.)  With that mismatch, I'm not sure what crew list you used either, so I'm going to remove that section from the STS-116 article and replace the redirect for STS-301 back to STS-300 until a solution can be discussed. (NASA has the info published at ) --Fumo7887 23:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that your information is a bit out of date. The date on the source you provide is from July 2005.  After the initial numbering scheme of STS-300 and STS-301, NASA decided to name resuce missions in accordance with the regular mission that they would actual become.  In this case the resuce mission FOR STS-116 would be STS-317 because if STS-116 is nominal, then the next mission is STS-117.  If STS-116 is not nominal, then STS-117 is modified into STS-317 for the rescue mission.  I'm sure other people involved with human spaceflight can confirm this information.  Cjosefy 01:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't want to fight this fight, so just look here . Cjosefy 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the way Cjosefy has added the section on STS-302 to STS-116 works well. The article for the planned mission is a sensible place to note how the crew, launch date, and other factors would change if the crew and orbiter were retasked to a rescue mission. The section could include a link to the "main article" (the STS-300 page once it's been moved). STS-116, also needs a secion on contingency planning - which would refer to the STS-317 rescue mission - each Shuttle mission article would have a section on two rescue flights, one which it could "become", and one which could rescue it. That could easily become confusing. I would support moving STS-300 to Space Shuttle Rescue Mission or STS-3xx (Another option could be Space Shuttle Launch on Demand Mission), with all STS-300, STS-301 etc. redirecting to that article. Only if a particular STS-3xx mission became likley to occur would it be encyclopedic in its own right. Richard Taylor 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I don't have time to read through everything now, I like the direction that article has taken. Thanks to Cjosefy for the work!  Once an article name is chosen, I think that will put better focus on the article and hopefully we should be able to remove the cleanup tag soon.  --Fumo7887 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey Closed
I'm restarting the debate below. I think the consensus (on the entire talk page, not just this section) is that although the article name is wrong, there's still debate as to what the article SHOULD be called, which itself depends on how STS-3xx information should be presented. See the "Debate Consolidation" section below.

Mission designations
We've got some problems with the mission designations;
 * They've changed over time (Do we ignore the past - or try and explain it)
 * The best reference for the designations that we've got in the article is from July 2005, this appears to be outdated - is there a better reliable one.
 * List of space shuttle missions, is unreferenced. Richard Taylor 17:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The STS-121 press kit, which is referenced, shows STS-300 as the resuce for 121 and STS-301 as the rescue for 115. As for a better publically available reference, I'm not sure there is one.  The scheme for rescue mission designation changed some months ago, but this hasn't been referenced publically.  All I can say is that the mission manifests that make it out (including this one) clearly show the progression of rescue flights.  I appreciate the work that is going into this set of articles, and it is a shame that the purblically available information can be so off from the internally available data.  Of course, the "Shuttle Handbook" that is the basis for most of the STS articles is from 1988 and NASA hasn't bothered to update it on their pages, so I'm not surprised.  In some cases, systems have been removed for 10+ years, and the NASA shuttle pages still refer to them as existing, which in turn causes Wikipedia to show this information too. Cjosefy 22:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Updated Manifest
Latest Manifest Hopefully this can put to rest all this STS-302 stuff. There is no STS-302. Also, the STS-121 press kit, which is referenced, makes it clear that STS-300 was the rescue mission for STS-121, and STS-301 the rescue mision for STS-115. This should make it clear that the earlier CSCS ground rules document is out of date. Cjosefy 22:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article to point to that launch schedule, and the STS-121 press kit as a reference - in the appriopriate place. The problem we've got is no official NASA mention of STS-318 - so we've got to reply on that offical looking PDF obtained via a third party site. At the moment A Google search for STS-318 on a NASA site yields no hits - as does a search for STS-118 on NASA's site. Richard Taylor 23:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Debate Consolidation - Requested Move - August 2006
I think the only thing that's been decided so far is that the entire format for STS-3xx missions is not right, but a number of solutions have come up in seperate threads and discussions are taking place seperately when it should really be thought of as one issue. From reading what's taken place above, here's what I'm gathering that the questions are:


 * The STS-300 article actually covers all STS-3xx missions (as of right now). This was the original reason for starting the vote on moving the article.  Because of this, I think it's been generally decided that this article should the general scope of STS-3xx.  With this decision, the article's name is no longer appropriate, but a new name has not been decided on.  Suggestions have included:
 * Space Shuttle Rescue Mission
 * Contingency Shuttle Crew Support
 * Space Shuttle Launch on Need Mission
 * STS-3xx (STS-30x, as suggested, is not accurate)
 * Although it has been decided that we do not want to create an article for each rescue mission, there is still debate as to where rescue information should be posted. Should it be posted on the mission page (like put STS-301 information directly on the STS-115 page), or should it be consolidated on this new STS-3xx (or whatever name is chosen) page?

Since these two issues are related, I think it warrants voting on them together. I've put my vote below, and I think consolidating everything should allow for a faster resolution. --Fumo7887 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Rename to xxx followed by your proposed location for rescue information and an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Rename to STS-3xx and post all rescue mission information in one article. --Fumo7887 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to STS-3xx and post all rescue mission information in one article, unless/until there's enough on a particular mission to make it worthy of an article. Rescue mission crews would be best described in the "parent mission"'s article. Any of the renaming options given are fine, and all are an improvement on the current situation. 86.6.10.96 21:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the move, as its clearly an improvement and needed to move from STS-300 - even if eventually it ends up with a different title  Richard Taylor 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the move tag since the new title seems to fit the new focus of the article. We've come a long way in a short time on this one.  Thanks to everyone for their work on it! —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
The new timeline says that the damaged orbiter will be destroyed upon reentering the atmosphere. Didn't this change with STS-121? —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. They'll more than likely still ditch it into the ocean to be safe. Cjosefy 04:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
So, we all agree that the name change is a good thing, and that there should definitely be generic information that is common to all rescue missions on this page (i.e. a general description of what would happen). But what about specifics for each mission (STS-301, STS-317, etc.). I am definitely NOT a fan of having a seperate section for each resuce flight inside this article that lists the crew (which is the way the page is now). I have no problem with a small list correlating between proper missions and their rescue counterpart, but if we continue to list each rescue crew on this page and have redirects for stuff such as STS-301 point to this page, then we are missing the big picture.

The specific crew information should not be on this page, but on the corresponding mission page (example: STS-301 goes into the STS-116 article, STS-317 goes into the STS-117 article). This makes the most sense because the rescue missions are simply derivatives of existing missions and crews. See the Cjosefy 04:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think a mention of the rescue mission designation is appropriate for the actual mission pages, but if this is the page that is concentrating on rescue missions, then I think this is the place to include the information.  I DO agree with what you're saying for layout, however, and that was something I was planning on working on this weekend.  I think a table would be more appropriate.  Instead of having one section for the rescue orbiter and mission designation, I think that table can not only be cleaned up, but also contain the crew.  I don't think it belongs on the mission page because, again, that would take focus away from that mission, and we'd end up with the same issue we had here.  If the article is about STS-115, then make it about STS-115, don't include too much about STS-301.  All we need to do is state that the designation exists.  That's why this article is called STS-3xx... so it can be all-inclusive. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree. I worry that the page will become too cluttered once we have a table with 10+ rescue flights AND crew, but that's a small issue.  I just really feel that not having the rescue flight information in its equivalent regular missions glosses over the fact that they really are the same.  Perhaps we have a misunderstanding, I would mention in the STS-115 article that it would be rescued by STS-301.  Then in the STS-116 article I would have the crew list and information for STS-301 because STS-116 IS STS-301.  Perhaps others can chime in on this.  Cjosefy 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning for not wanting individual mission pages is that they're unlikley to be encyclopedic - there's just not enough specific content and they're unlikley to be flown. As for listing the crews, they're only four member crews - crews could easily be added to the table in the article if desired. I don't think this makes the table to cluttered (We could go for surnames only to make it cleaner) - I've produced two options which are presented below. Richard Taylor 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible new tables including crew
Below is an idea I've been playing with. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. It seems easier to understand than the earlier tables.  However, I don't understand the first entry in the table.  I was under the impression that STS-114 was the first flight to have a designated rescue flight (the first STS-300), therefore, I don't think the first line in the table is valid. Cjosefy 13:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the first line is OK, prior to STS-114 the designation STS-300 was used to describe all rescue missions - I don't know when the designation started being used though - that would be an interesting fact to add to the article (A quick search found a Usenet posting from 1997). I've added another crew to the table below - I think it's excellent - only downside is that it's quite large, with my second option above I was trying to come up with something small. Richard Taylor
 * We definitely need a source. The Usenet post you found refers to an STS-300 that would occur if 300+ flights were actually flown, not a rescue mission.  It is my understanding that the STS-3xx missions were formed because of CAIB   recommendations. Again, we need to find a source wither way! Cjosefy 11:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the more compact table above. I think it gives the most interesting information at a glance, allows linking to the detailed information for those more curious, and takes up the least space in an article that should probably be more about the general plan than the hypothetical details of each mission anyway. I think I'd like to see STS-3xx become the place to go for info on all of the CSCS plans, whereas each STS-1xx mission would get an entry (maybe in the info box or one of the later subsections) about which mission would come rescue it if necessary and which rescue mission it would become if necessary. (And that probably means I think STS-3xx should be expanded and renamed something like Contingency Shuttle Crew Support...with STS-3xx as a subsection...) On a related note, and as mentioned above, we really need references for this info. It looked like NASA was going to put it in press kits for a while, but then it disappeared from STS-115's kit. And clearly, the CSCS pdf that was one of the original sources for a lot of this is out of date. --3Idiot 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is that a lot of this stuff isn't released by NASA until they're pressured, so it's hard to have a "legit" reference for everything. I've personally posted a launch schedule just to prove that some of these rescue flights existed, but how far do we want to go with this?  Do we trust people who work for NASA to continue to update these pages with good information (witness the Launch dates that exist for the rest of the Shuttle flights) that isn't posted on NASA websites?  Do we take information from NASA and post it on external websites and reference that?  Do you just forget it and scrap all the content that can't be confirmed by NASA.gov?  I don't know. Cjosefy 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

STS-115 Media Pack
This has been released : and contains no reference to a rescue flight or STS-3**

Launch dates
Perhaps the table should includes the original mission launch date as well as the NET launch date for the equivalent rescue missions. This is important information because the time between varies depending on the mission (right now anywhere between 51-75 days between original launch and rescue launch). Cjosefy 13:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All proposed tables link to the mission being rescued, which contains that information. As far as the launch of the rescue, that would be something not announced unless the mission was needed, but would be close to the example timeline that is already in the article.  —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

redirecting to this page?
I agree STS-300 should redirect here, but shouldn't STS-301 redirect to STS-116, etc? Mlm42 19:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move - November 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

not moved. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

STS-3xx → Launch On Need — Should use official NASA terminology instead of current name, which is not the flight designation anyway. GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .


 * Oppose. "Launch on Need" makes no sense at all, unless you already know that the context is shuttle missions.  Sure, when NASA is dealing with shuttle missions, it may make sense for them to talk about "launch on need".  The only way that could possibly make sense in a Wikipedia article name is if it were used as an adjective, as in Launch-on-Need Shuttle missions.  Gene Nygaard 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to use that as a compromise solution. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem with that would be that it would need redirects from a whole bunch of possible capitalization/hyphenation/word choice variations (incl. Shuttle in initial spot rather than afterwards, "Space Shuttle", mission/missions/program/standby or whatever), in addition to moving a plethora of already existing ones. And it wouldn't materially increase the likelihood of someone finding it when putting something in the "Go" box or creatig a link. So I see no compelling reason for a change. Also, it should come as no surprise to anybody if clicking on a link to "STS-318", or putting that in the "Go" box, takes them to "STS-3xx" but it might take them longer to figure out what is going on if that link takes them to some other name.  Gene Nygaard 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The mission number is much more useful for locating the article when searching then the more generic choice put forth. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 21:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name of the article was intended to match the articles that are named by mission number. If anything, "Launch on Need" could be redirected here, but "STS-3xx" seems to be the appropriate name. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History should be mentioned
It seems to me that this mission was created following the Columbia crush. If this is really the case, this should be mentioned in the article. Dan Gluck 18:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears so, given that all the missions are associated with post-Columbia missions. This makes the Pre-ISS section all the more mystefying. Bhudson 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RCO Landing Site
In the article it says that the landing site for the unmanned shuttle would most likely be Edwards Air Force Base. However a source quotes a NASA spokesperson saying they would not target landing site at EAFB and that the prime landing site would be White Sands. A NASAspaceflight.com article is given as source for the Edwards possibility, but the text there seems more like the author's own speculation and not coming from a statement from NASA. A later article quotes documentation about the RCO saying

SCR 93100C is the Operational Increment (OI)-33 version of SCR 92971D, 'RCO-Flight Software Changes to Support Remote Control,' which provided for the capability of performing an unmanned space shuttle deorbit from the International Space Station (ISS) and landing at White Sands Space Harbor (WSSH)

and

Due to Range Safety issues of flying over populated land masses, Vandenberg replaces WSSH as the primary landing site

That would make it seem like NASA never intended Edwards to be the prime landing site for a unmanned shuttle and that Vandenberg Air Force Station is now the primary RCO landing site. Should the wiki article be changed somehow to reflect this?130.234.5.136 09:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)