Talk:STS-51-F

Untitled
REFERENCE FOR COCA-COLA EXPERIMENT:

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.146.128 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What did these magical cola cans look like? How were they designed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.255.148 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ascent notability
The article needs to more prominently cover (e.g. in the intro paragraph) the "limits to inhibit" call during ascent, as this incident makes the mission unique and is extremely notable. There's some source material in "Story: The Way of Water" by Anne E. Lenehan. http://books.google.com/books?id=kFuf9pSnbSYC starting at about page 198. Undoubtedly there's coverage elsewhere too! (sdsds - talk) 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Targeted Proximity Operations
It is also note-worthy that this was the first targeted proximity operations mission. Targeting algorithms onboard the Shuttle included Rendezvous (RNDZ) code for coarse orbit adjustment, as well as fine. Coarse adjustments used targeting algorithms that employ Lambert equations. The fine, close-in, adjustments were made with newly tested (at the time) code using Clohessy-Wilshire equations, and using all available sensors in the aft cockpit. These were extensively tested in both 3-DOF and 6-DOF simulators before proximity targeted maneuvers were approved by NASA.

Due to the ATO, the entire mission ops for Days 2 and 3 were replanned real-time. RNDZ orbit designers worked 24 hours straight to replan the targeted proximity operations. This allowed the plasma physics phase of the mission to proceed as planned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataliesees (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on STS-51-F. 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/20161221020839/http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/orbit.html to http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/orbit.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930025908/http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html to http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html

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) 09:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This was not on Challenger
Discovery was used for this mission, not Challenger. Also, why isn't this merged with STS 26? 2600:6C42:7700:3F17:B19C:3019:1D19:D677 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying this for future readers, I believe this user confused the [STS-51-F] and [STS-26] missions, both of which used the number '26' as identifiers for their respective missions in official documentation, but they were distinctive missions with different crews, payloads, shuttles, and objectives. For reference, here are two YouTube videos of the launches and landings of these different missions - shown as external links: [STS-51-F] [STS-26R] SpacePod9 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Which orbit is correct (or are they both)
In the infobox it is shown Perigee altitude	312 km (194 mi) Apogee altitude	320 km (200 mi). In the "Launch" section, it is stated The plan had been for a 385 km (239 mi) by 382 km (237 mi) orbit,[8] but the mission was carried out at 265 km (165 mi) by 262 km (163 mi).[9]. Doesn't this mean the Perigee/Apogee was 265/262 km, not 312/320 km? Or are they different stats? Sijambo (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the Space Shuttle Mission Report for 51F and found some discrepancies in the orbit data as compared to other sources. Currently, the only accessible version of this report I could find is here, though I am searching for a more reliable host. The report states: "..burn placed the Shuttle in a 143.1 nmi by 108.0 nmi orbit with an inclination of 49.57 degrees ... three additional OMS burns were required to raise the orbit to 170.7 nmi by 169.8 nmi."
 * The press kit found here, cited in the article for the planned orbit, indicates a different final orbit than currently stated in the article: "Insert into 186 nmi by 106 nmi (direct insertion orbit, then maneuver to approximately 207 nmi circular with 7 OMS maneuvers..." Weirdly off by only one mile in either direction, but this is the source it was supposedly quoted from.
 * Additionally, the more recently dated Space Shuttle Missions Summary presents another set of figures for the insertion orbit: 142.9 nmi by 108.7 nmi with an inclination of 49.491 degrees, and an orbit of 174 nmi by 164 nmi at the time of deorbit.
 * Given the discrepancies and my inability to personally verify the sources of the Missions Report (all the links are dead now), I propose we determine which source we find most credible and update the article accordingly. askeuhd (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)