Talk:STS-118

Article structure

Anybody else think that this article is a bit like reading a story? It needs to be updated so that it doesn't seem like it's out of some random sci-fi novel.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.34.244 (talk • contribs)

No. An encyclopedia is not a list of random facts, it tells a story of its subject. After the mission is concluded, information will be condensed, and the article length will be shortened, but as it is happening now, the information is relevant. Anyone reading it would know full well it isn't a "sci-fi novel". ^Ariel♥Gold 08:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Educator Astronaut

Barbera Morgan is NOT an Educator Astronaut technically. The first Educator Astronauts were in the Astronaut class of 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.240.83 (talk • contribs)

Revert war on crew names

The current revert warring about crew names (complete and formal or short and informal) leads me to suggest a compromise. Each astronaut has a nickname used as their radio call sign, yes? Robert Curbeam is "Beamer". William Oefelein is "Billie-O". Maybe each of the warring parties would be satisfied if these nicknames were included with the complete formal names? Sdsds 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably coming in on this late, but my understanding (could be flawed) is that only the military aviator astronauts (generally the Pilot and Commander onboard Shuttle flights, and sometimes the CAPCOM astronaut or others on the ground who are also current or former military aviators) have radio call signs that are used over the radio during NASA missions.

Ageekgal 11:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as how NASA uses "nicknames", Pilots may have one, (Charlie's is "Scorch") but others may have them too, for instance, Tracy Caldwell is often called "TC", Robert Curbeam as mentioned was called "Beemer", and Benjamin Drew is called by his middle name, Alvin.

As for the articles, the initial mention of the crew should list their full given name, regardless of if that is what they are called, that is how NASA does it in all their documents. NASA does not list any call signs, and indeed, you'll find no mention of "Scorch" in the press kit. Subsequent references to the crew use their common name, but rarely their "call sign/nickname". I would suggest to avoid confusion, call signs be removed, and nicknames only used when the person is called that in day-to-day activity. For instance, do not call Charlie "Scorch" in the article, or Tracy "TC", but it is acceptable to call Benjamin "Alvin". The thing to remember is this is an encyclopedia. Regardless of the fact that someone may have a call sign, an Encyclopedia would not refer to the person with it. Likewise, "Beemer" or "Billy-O" would not be acceptable, but Bob for Robert, or Bill for William, would be. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you on the call signs. Regardless of whether NASA lists call signs anywhere (which they do on the 118 Fact Sheet), they are useful for anyone listening to the transmissions on the air-to-grounds, since that's what you will hear each person called. For example, I never once heard Rick Sturckow being called Rick, it was always CJ. As for where this information belongs, perhaps not in the text of this article, but maybe on each astronaut's page. anonymous6494 03:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the prose in the article should use semi-formal names when referring to astronauts. The original revert-warring was regarding the listing in the "Crew" section. This is where I feel including call signs like "Scorch", "Beemer" and "TC" would be helpful to readers. As anonymous6494 points out, having access to this (factual and source-able) information makes the radio transmissions more understandable. Where better to consult for call-sign facts than Wikipedia? (sdsds - talk) 03:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put call signs in the initial crew mention (the crew list), it certainly doesn't bother me (although it might make for a pretty long name in some cases, lol). As for adding information regarding the call signs, I'd agree those belong on the individual's article, as I've put information regarding "Scorch" on Charles' article today. I agree it would be helpful for listening to transmissions, but strictly historically speaking, it is probably irrelevant. I simply meant that it would not be proper to write something such as "Then Scorch moved the robotic arm to the Z1 truss" etc., as far as encyclopedic writing went. But having the call signs mentioned somewhere once doesn't bother me personally, at all. I'm not sure who was doing the edit warring about it, as I didn't notice. :) ^Ariel♥Gold 04:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we are in agreement. anonymous6494 09:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actual Time of Launch

What time will Endeavour launch in Floridian time? It says it'll be close to midnight, but that's Greenwich Mean Time...

Update

Updated the page to reflect the correct launch time following the FRR completion yesterday. Launch is scheduled for 7:02 p.m. EDT, August 7, with a 10 minute window.

Edited article for both clarity and uniform layout (see STS-117) and moved payload information into payload section. Added fact section. Changed wording on the status section, as it was written in present tense. Will expand the mission section soon.

If you have any questions about edits, or if you have any ideas or comments, please discuss them here. (Also don't forget to put information in the edit summaries ;) ) Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 15:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions#New missions actions contains a list describing all articles, templates, and lists which will require updating once the mission lifts off. Rmhermen 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you for that link! ^Ariel♥Gold 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

CMG

As i understand it, they are gonna install ESP-3 which contains spare parts, and immediately use the CMG spare to replace the broken one.... Leaving them again without a spare, and another empty rack position.... (They have more empty ESP spots then filled ones after this mission). Since CMGs don't fit trough the berthing ports, this seems like a rather important part to have a spare of before the shuttles retire. Anyone have some insight on how they think they are gonna handle this up to 2016 ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Once the new CMG is installed on Z1, the failed CMG will be moved from the Z1 truss to ESP‐2. The failed CMG will be returned to Earth on STS-122 in December (2007). There are four CMGs; CMG-3 failed last October, but only 2 CMGs are currently needed to control attitude. After STS-118 is complete, there will be four working CMGs, and one failed CMG on the ESP. CMGs are not classified as "Consumables", they last for years. While they technically may be classified as ORUs, they are not a regularly replaced item. Also, a smaller version is being looked at as an option post-2010

If needed in the future, CMGs can be sent up with upcoming shuttle missions. As for post-retirement (after 2010), the ATV (scheduled to begin service in 2008) should be able to send a CMG if needed, the HTV can carry unpressurized cargo, and they also have plans to use the Russian Proton rocket, sending up MPLMs and the Russian research module, so that would most likely be another option as well. As a last resort, if needed, the Progress can be modified to accommodate unpressurized cargo that cannot fit through the hatches (as was done with the Mir roll control thruster package). ^Ariel♥Gold 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Schedule

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/118/118walkthrough.html This is a pretty good link for anyone who wants to follow the mission. Detailed schedule of the activities etc. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone Format

I (User:srain) had a discussion with User:GW_Simulations about time zone formatting for this article, and found the following 2 articles which I think should be followed:

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Time_zones gives the general idea, and;

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space_missions#Time_format_discussion gives a more specific overview for space missions. Here's what I read:

1) Only list the time if it's significant. This is a larger discussion all by itself. I would look at previous missions for guidance.

2) Events in orbit should be listed in UTC 24-hour format. Ex: 04:22:43 UTC.

3) Events on the ground (launch/landing) should be listed in LOCAL (UTC_24-hour). Ex: 3:37 PM EDT (19:37 UTC) or 15:37 EDT (19:37 UTC). Whether local time should be 24-hour or 12-hour is a point for discussion. For the US, 12-hour would be typical, and is what appears in news stories and on NASA's websites...

Thanks! Srain 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. All space missions should be standard with regards to time formatting. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

After further review of past flight articles, the "standard" for shuttle missions seems to be using pm (without abbreviating periods), not PM. MoS says to use P.m. (which I think looks goofy, personally, either capitalized it all or don't.). I'd suggest using the standard set by NASA, which is a.m. / p.m. I would be willing to review recent past flights and change to this format. Since the mission pages go with terms used by NASA it seems only correct to use the format for time they use. So, dates would become 11:00 a.m. EDT (15:00 UTC).

Any objection to this? ^Ariel♥Gold 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. 3) would change to 3) Events on the ground (launch/landing) should be listed in LOCAL_12-hour (UTC_24-hour). Ex: 3:37 p.m. EDT (19:37 UTC). Srain 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly what I was thinking, I notice you're working on STS-117, so I'll go through STS-116. Thanks Srain! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a crock. The ISS runs on UTC, the provincial EDT is hardly important unless you happen to live in Florida. It's an insult to the world wide nature of the web and the ISS to have this double time every time. The EDT time should be mentioned at launch and then it's simple addition after that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.247.123 (talk • contribs)

While I agree it is redundant, the simple fact is, it is not an insult. Not every user is in UTC time zone, nor do average users have a clock with UTC on it, (or indeed, some may not even know what it is unless they live in or near that time zone) and they prefer to have standard time for references. It is a small thing to give readers, and assists with understanding and context of the article. Even NASA does it when they do reports of actions from space. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I do agree however that it would be best to keep double times limited to the bigger events. In all realism, most people are not gonna care about every little small event and when that happened in space. And if they do, they DO have a UTC clock to keep track of the event anyways. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is a tiny bit off topic, but what really helped me understand this issue at a gut level was working on an article about a spaceflight that launched from Baikonur. Standardizing on UTC started to look like a really good idea! I bet the experience would be the same for launches from Omelek or Ocean Odyssey. (sdsds - talk) 17:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if your origination is in UTC, it makes it easy lol. I agree with TheDJ, however that probably only one UTC-to-EDT translation is needed per mission day, perhaps at the wake up note. If someone truly wants to figure out what time something happened, a little math isn't that hard, and it can end up messing up the articles. However, this seems to be a long-standing "tradition", and has been done from article to article for the past several years, so to change this, means to change the WikiProject Space Missions guideline for writing mission articles, and I've no idea how one would go about that. While I agree that the constant (EDT) after each time is annoying, I'd get consensus before changing this article, as all other missions would need to be changed as well, and that's a big undertaking. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be selective about using local time, but I would like to see it more than just once. My preference is to use it as the primary time (+UTC) for all ground operations. The main reason I want to include local time for ground operations is local time of day. Time of day can be important for the context of the events (night/sunrise/sunset events, etc) and it's an easy way to help me envision events. That's true for launches from Kennedy to Kourou to Baikonur. I also must admit that I always find the math difficult, especially due to the use of "daylight savings" time. For in-flight operations, I absolutely think we should stick to UTC only. Thanks! Srain 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree. I'd just note that for dates that have multiple time events, I think the conversion doesn't need to be done at every single event, unless it is a date change. For instance, some missions (not this one, thankfully) due to the timing, start their day in space halfway through "our" day here, and end the next day for us. For those examples, the time notation is most helpful. But when speaking of something such as "De-orbit preparations began at 11:27 (UTC) (7:27 ETD), with the first ignition burn occurring at 13:39 (UTC)." In that case (if such a sentence were to be written) there is no need to add the second EDT notation, as it isn't that difficult to see that it was about 2 hours later. (Hope you can follow what I mean, lol!) While I agree it may be cumbersome, or appear strange, this is how NASA does it most of the time, and how most people prefer to read it, as they too, aren't the best at conversion, what with us having daylight saving time and all, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, here's the odd thing: Technically, during missions, NASA reports time in CST/CDT because mission control is at JSC in Houston. However, historically here we're sticking with EST/EDT. Interesting, no? :) ^Ariel♥Gold 01:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i knew that. Actually the only things should actually be in EST/EDT should be the launch and landing at KSC i guess --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, true, technically, but the fact is, non-space enthusiasts don't understand all of this, and many don't even understand what GMT/UTC time is, or why it is used, so it is in the articles for simple ease of use and understanding. ~*shrug*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 01:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal seems fine as is. But I wanted to point out for most of the world, GMT/UTC is much more useful then EDT. Most of the world doesn't know or care what EDT is and is far more likely to now their timezone in GMT/UTC then their time difference with EDT Nil Einne 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor Style

This article needs rewriting to make it more encyclopaedic. In particular to remove all the present tense descriptions. “STS-118 is the current Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station, being flown by the Space Shuttle Endeavour.” How is this going to work for people reading the article in 100 years time? Wikipedia is not a news site! This sort of writing, and thinking, on the part of some editors makes Wikipedia look childish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.206.137 (talk • contribs)

Don't worry about it. This page is so active that it will be good both now and in the future. Several people are continuously updating this page throughout the mission. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Many articles on Wikipedia are written "as they happen", so to speak, and as events unfold, the tenses are changed as applicable, as well as general cleanup. Missions such as this have a basic standard, what sections should be included, etc., so no worries, after the mission is over it will get organized and be in line with the other mission pages. ^Ariel♥Gold 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong place

I know this is the wrong place but is there any kind of live feed of video or eeven audio of these space dudes? Is there a live vid feed from the ISS at any time? 83.70.247.123 02:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

During missions, you can view live video from NASA TV. During non-missions, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time daily, a one hour live ISS update is given via the NASA TV Feed. Other live events schedules can be found here. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in having a space station if I can't have a live feed of the earth as my desktop wallpaper. I thought that was the whole point of a permanent station. 83.70.247.123 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to read the article about the International Space Station, and you'll find out that having a 24 hour live feed is not possible, nor was that the reason for building it. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder on wording of day-to-day events.

For instance, today's edits introduced the sentence that "a worrisome area was found". This is simply untrue. The news services that pick up stories twist them to make any small thing a big deal. The fact is, that there has been no focused inspection yet, and John Shannon does NOT call it "worrisome". I saw the news conference. I'd ask folks to please not speculate about things in the future on the article, just report as it unfolds. They have scheduled the focused inspection for Sunday, and at that time, they'll get more information as to the extent of the ding, depth, etc. But they are not going to speculate as to the extent, or the type of damage until then. WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.

Per John Shannon (chairman of NASA's Mission Management Team):

"We have a rich flight history of tile damage, some of which is more significant looking than what we have right here," Shannon said. "But instead of guessing, we'll go and get the right characterization of exactly what the damage is and then run the thermal models and then we'll know. In the past, we didn't even know we had damage and we flew back home (safely). So what I would tell you is, we're going to do all the work required to understand it and if something is required, we'll go do that. I would not even venture to guess what the probability is we would have to go repair this."

So just a reminder not to use words like "worrisome" or "concerning" if not used by NASA, and not to make judgments during this kind of mission. If in doubt, copy the wording from NASA (no copyright laws apply to that), from the status reports they do twice a day.

As for using Yahoo or other questionable sources as references: It would be best to stay with reputable sources, such as CBS News Space Place, or Nasa space flight, as they both have reporters on site at JSC (Yahoo does not), and they both have highly respected reporters who have covered the space program for years, and are known for their neutrality, where many other sites, including CNN, USA Today, and others, often "spin" small things, and blow them out of proportion. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If in doubt, copy the wording from NASA (no copyright laws apply to that), status reports they do twice a day. Ummm, it may not be a copyright violation to do that, but it's still plagiarism. It's always better to paraphrase. 09:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.132.76 (talk • contribs)

It's only plagiarism if you do that and pretend you wrote it (ie. by failing to note the source). If you admit you took public-domain text from NASA, it's legitimate. If you paraphrase and still pretend you came up with it on your own, it could still be plagiarism (but that's a grayer area). BigNate37_(T) 20:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA's public domain/copyright policy is clearly noted, and well known. As long as you cite the source as NASA. Any time a fact is stated, it should be backed up with a reference anyway. The point I was making wasn't regarding plagiarism, it was regarding the addition of un-sourced, unconfirmed, speculative information. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out, the context of that sentence you quoted, when I referred to "copy the wording", I was referring to single words, such as "concerning" or "worrying", not to copying entire passages. To put it into context: So just a reminder not to use words like "worrisome" or "concerning" if not used by NASA, If in doubt, copy the wording from NASA . (i.e. don't make up words like "horrible" or "dangerous" if those words weren't said by NASA); NASA's status reports will have the proper wording for issues, and that was my entire point. In no way was I suggesting someone copy and paste an entire status report. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Times and dates in the EVA table

A comment about times and dates in the table of EVAs: this can get just a bit tricky, for example when the starting date of an EVA is different from the ending date, or when the ending date in UTC is different from the ending date in EDT or CDT. One way to handle these is the table format used at Extra-vehicular activity#2007 EVAs: provide only UTC and include the date with both start and end times. (sdsds - talk) 17:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Separate columns for Start/End times (and dates if appropriate) would help clear it up, and there is no need to provide EDT, as the information is nearly always added into a summary for the day's activities, and can easily be put there for people who may not be able to figure out the time in UTC. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Just noticed my image was replaced with the same image from the Commons, and I'm just wondering, is there a policy that we're to use Commons images if they exist, before using normal uploads? I guess that I thought when I uploaded here, it went to Commons, because they show up on my history there, so I'm a bit confused as to why it seems it did not do so. Thanks ^Ariel♥Gold 05:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If the same image is on commons as well, then commons is definitely preferred. It will stimulate other language projects to use the commons image as well. It's not really a requirement of course. I'm not entirely sure how the upload process for images work beyond this, so i have no explanation for your history. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie, thanks. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Tile trouble

WJBK-TV's news reports that the gouge in the tile penetrates every layer of one of the tiles... should that be added somewhere? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

John Shannon's words were (and I quote):

"As you can see ... it's a fairly deep gouge. The tile itself is 1.2 inches thick, and the gouge goes pretty much through the entire thickness of the tile."

"This is something we would rather not deal with, but we have really prepared for exactly this case, so I feel very comfortable that whatever is required, we can go do and do it successfully."

It should be noted that he's based that off of preliminary data that he only received a few hours before the meeting, and he did not initially say it went through the entire layer. It was only once pressed by journalists looking to make the worst out of something, did he say he thought the depth could be through the entire tile.

The data has not been analyzed, he's not part of the engineering team that will be studying it, and he will wait until the analysis and testing is done to make any conclusive decisions. Keep in mind that they will do meticulous measuring of the photography, calculations of the dimensions, far more extensive than they'd done after only a couple hours. Only once all those calculations are done, and the damage simulated in the mock-up facility, can they know for sure the extent of the damage. Then, they'll go do flow testing, re-entry simulations, and heat testing to evaluate the ramifications.

The simple fact is, the media just looks for any stupid little thing to grasp onto, and then they turn it into a huge deal. Just like last mission, when they jumped on the computer issue ISS had, and started blasting headlines about "abandoning" the station, which was never once in the minds of NASA or the RSA at the time. Yes, it is a contingency, but it has always been a contingency since day one. Until there is valid information relating to

Rather than make assumptions, as a neutral encyclopedia that reports facts, information should not be added to the article until it is 100% verifiable. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/STS/HTML/EC88-0247-1.html I wanna use this image of TPS damage somewhere in wikipedia, but i don't feel like doing it now. Dumping it here, so I remember to do it later. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

names of articles

Since a lot of people are watching this atm: I'm thinking about moving SSPTS to Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System and moving SRMS to Canadarm (to bring it in line with Canadarm2) Are there other people who think that's a good idea, or people who think it's a terrible idea? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest simply reversing the existing redirects. Many people will use SSPTS/SRMN as a search term, and redirecting would take them to the same place. Currently, the extended name redirects to SSPTS. Simply swap the redirects. Same with SRMS. Just my opinion, but I don't think moving is a good idea. ^Ariel♥Gold 20:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

swapping and moving is the same in the case where you move to a redirect. Mediawiki is that smart :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional images of tile damage

[1]. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Length

Just to "head off at the pass" any concerns about the length, please be aware that while the mission is in progress, the material added is pertinent, and relevant. Following the missions, the article will be trimmed, with relevant facts retained, so the length should not be an issue in a couple of months. Also, sincere thanks to everyone who has helped keep this article up to date, has helped fix my occasional typos (proofreaders shouldn't proofread their own writing! ), and I'm happy to see everyone working together to make this as accurate and neutral as possible during ongoing events! Kudos to you all! ^Ariel♥Gold 02:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

STS-322 or STS-320

The article says that the rescue mission is STS-320, however in the shuttle manifest provided by nasaspaceflight.com, the rescue mission of STS-118 is STS-322, while STS-120's rescue mission is STS-320. Could someone say what is the right number of the rescue missions ??? Here is a source for my statement Thansk/ Hektor 10:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that information is was L2 info, and per Chris Bergin, can't be released to the public. I agree the STS numbering is incorrect, but the basic info was taken, I believe, from the RTF report, the section about CSCS plans, and I believe that document calls all contingency flights "STS-320". Basically, the CSCS says that a subset (usually 5 of 7 crewmembers) of the next upcoming mission is the CSCS crew/vehicle for the current mission, if required. But until NASA releases that manifest publicly, we can't publish that information here. If you can find the public document with the correct flight numbers, post it here, we'd be happy to put it up! The way it is worded here is pretty muddled, I've tried to re-word it, but really didn't have much luck clearing it up. I may dig deeper after the mission to get a standard statement regarding CSCS up for the next mission. ^Ariel♥Gold 10:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I see that FAWG was released, so I'll look into that and get that updated. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA POV

If you look at Damaged shuttle Endeavour lands safely By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer, August 21, 2007, she writes:

The 3 1/2-inch-long gouge to Endeavour's protective tiles caused by falling debris during liftoff was the main concern for much of Endeavour's mission.

I tried to add this briefly to the lead section when it first emerged as an issue because it was obviously not going to fix itself, but User:ArielGold took it out and replaced all such verbiage with prose based primarily on NASA press conferences. Is that what we want? NASA administrators have been shown to consistently tightly control their public images (usually for the sake of protecting their reputations) and downplay the risks of space flight when the flight is still in progress. We still do not mention the damage in the lead section. NASA admins would probably still insist that the risk was always manageable and under control, even if they have adjusted their numerical risks after the two historic shuttle disasters. I guess what I am asking is: do we go with ArielGold's style and trust NASA management or do we go with Ms. Dunn's style and emphasize this point in the lead section. Ms. Dunn's prose clearly indicates that the issue belongs in our lead.

Let me also point out that people who feel a personal dedication to NASA tend to take a command-and-control approach to this kind of thing because they feel the need to display leadership and control the morale of those NASA staff who are actually providing support to the mission, so they tend to fight bad PR when the flight is in progress. NASA has certainly gotten itself into some tight spots over the years, with heroic efforts like those of Glynn Lunney to save the day being admirable, but our job is to tell it like it is based on what we know. I just think that our prose should reflect a more balanced combination of what NASA administration is saying and what professional science journalists are saying, even if only the former has more complete information and the responsibility to bring the crew home safely.--SallyForth123 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that in this case, NASA is right. If you look at the post-landing conference (i'm sure it will be up for repeat very soon on nasatv), you will see Griffin hitting some homerun lectures towards the press. As much as NASA has been wrong in the past on some things, everything they have said so far on this mission was highly scientifically sound (and independently checked as well). And journalists have tossed this whole thing way out of proportion. What people don't understand are some of the following things:

1. Tile damage is not like RCC damage (which crashed columbia). There is a BIG difference
2. The shuttle and the tiles are DESIGNED to experience damage during flight (within limits)
3. After every flight they replace a hundred or so tiles
4. They have serious analytic tools and repair methods now beyond anything they have ever had.

As much as NASA were ignoring some of the design parameters of the thermal protection system in the period leading up to columbia, they have been honoring them since then. That does not mean a shuttle has to be spot clean to land, it's designed to have tile damage, and it's perfectly fine to have tiledamage (within limits). If they needed to have fixed it, they would have fixed it. I mean lines like "an orbital drama" which the specific article opens with are simply BULL. Yes, NASA spends a lot of attention on it, and yes it's something potentially dangerous, but we all wanted NASA to take this stuff seriously, and now they do. It was cleared, and not an issue. I mean, after 2 days they already said: "in case of emergency, we will land this orbiter with this damage, even without full analysis". That should tell you something. The media are totally ripping this out of proportion because they have no idea how complex the shuttle is. It is a beast of a machine and everything it does involves risks. And no, I do not work for NASA, i'm simply someone who has watched NASA TV during several missions almost 24/7, and has read a lot about the thing, unlike 3/4 of the journalists that report on this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said originally, the terms used in the original statement, were not terms used by NASA. Dunn is most definitely not one of the most neutral reporters when it comes to NASA, and she never has been, nor is she a scientist. As I asked before, compare her reports to Bill Harwood's, there is a huge difference: Harwood is much less "drama-centric" and neutral, reporting facts, as they happen. NASA's concerns regarding the tile had nothing to do with crew safety or loss of vehicle; the concerns were related to post-landing vehicle processing times. They said this every single day at every single briefing, and the press refused to listen, hearing only the "worst case in the world" scenario, and asking questions relating to those implausible scenarios. And in line with the unofficial "Full disclosure" policy NASA encourages since Columbia, they would answer "what if" questions. These scenarios were what the media seized upon, not the facts. You ask why the word "concerning" isn't in the opening intro paragraph? Why emphasize something in the intro that ended up not being an issue? Ultimately, the tile damage will have no bearing on orbiter processing, and it had no effect on entry. And it most certainly was not the "main concern" of the mission, as Dunn alleges. The main concern of the mission was to get the truss installed, to get the cargo delivered, and to do the EVAs - the tile damage was a small part in the overall big picture of the mission.

As TheDJ mentions, the fact is the media truly do not understand the orbiter's systems, or how it is assembled, and they look for any "angle" to twist and get the most drama out of. That's just what the media does. NASA proved during this mission that they are objective, careful, methodical, and, ultimately, correct. Never once did I say "blindly trust NASA". What I said was, we shouldn't use terms that weren't used by NASA when describing the severity of an issue during a mission. To call something "worrisome" "concerning", or "troubling", when those weren't terms used by NASA, is interjecting the media's point of view, not the neutral fact-based point of view. It is also nothing more than "guessing", because the media sure as heck doesn't know more than NASA does about the engineering side of the space program. The media writes with an aim towards get ratings, sales figures, advertising, and circulation numbers up, and the way they do this is with drama. NASA has to report to a whole ton of people in the government, and if they were concerned about loss of vehicle, or crew, they would not have said "We're 100% confident", or it would have been disastrous for the agency had something happened. You make it sound as if I'm pushing some POV, when I'm not. I'm simply saying that an encyclopedia needs to remain neutral, and report the facts. You'll notice that any terms used during briefings by managers to describe situations, I used during my daily summaries, were attributed properly to the manager who said them. At no time did I downplay anything, and even Michael Griffin today stressed that the shuttle is "an experimental vehicle, and is not without risks". You seem to be basically saying you think Wikipedia editors should take a "media-centric" approach to writing the encyclopedia, and that's just simply not neutral.

Also, while it may not have been your intention, Sally, it seems as if you're singling me out, and almost accusing me of reverting any changes anyone else makes. I'm not the only one who believes in reporting facts without "catch phrases", and I'd like to point out that while I've written a lot into this article, I don't revert other people's additions, or their changes to my additions, (unless there is a reason backed up by guidelines/policy, or it is an obvious mistake that I can document with a reference) in fact, I often thank them for the improvements or fixes. And I participate fully in the conversations here, and respect those who offer valid solutions to problems, such as the time issue, the name issue, etc., and go along with the decisions that come out of the conversations.

Finally, look at the reference list; it is extremely complete, with highly respected, valid, reliable sources other than NASA. Every day in the summary, I used references not only from NASA, but from the media as well (including those of Marcia Dunn) with the express purpose of balancing the viewpoint, so it was not only NASA reports. Also the various news articles have most of the quotes or statements I reported on. The daily summary events can be verified by both NASA resources, and other media resources (and in greater detail than my summaries). My only difference is that when the media makes up adjectives that are used with the express purpose of making a situation seem worse than it is, I choose to remain neutral and use terms used by NASA.

I'm sorry if you don't think that's the right thing to do, Sally, but I personally believe it is how an encyclopedia should be. My efforts in this article, and any suggestions I made here, are not driven by anything related to NASA, or to "protecting" the integrity of the agency, they are simply driven by my personal desire to remain neutral, and to not interject the media's constant speculation into articles. Encyclopedias are not driven by drama, or emotion, or the goal of "catching the reader with a hook-word", they are driven by factual, neutral, well written information. Again, my apologies if you think this is not the way to do things, but I think the facts here speak for themselves: NASA was right, the tile issue was of no concern, it didn't affect the mission. As a historical record of this mission, it should not be given undue weight. It is already mentioned in nearly every summary, along with the extensive actions that were taken regarding it.

By the way, as an example of Marcia Dunn's "drama-focused" reporting, the first thing she asked the crew during the news conference was "Commander Kelly, what was it like seeing the big gouge up close, and were you bothered by it?" Instead of focusing on the mission, on the many tasks that were accomplished, on all the work they did, she zeros right in on wanting to know what Kelly thought of the "gouge". Completely unprofessional, uncalled for, and irrelevant, in my opinion. For the record, his response was "I was very underwhelmed by it". i.e. it wasn't even worth thinking about. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the average currently-living person, who will never fly in space, I think that the two things they are going to remember from this flight are Morgan and the tile damage. That may not be the scientific approach, but that is the human approach. If you look back at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster from a few years ago, before it made FA, say mid-2005, you will see that it wasted the reader's time informing the reader about the exact millisecond on which the mission ended and expended much verbiage about how the errant SRB's were handled (because there was lots of verifiable and detailed engineering data available) and spent relatively little time on what happened to the crew or why the event was Important (perhaps a better word would be "Historic"). The article needed to be heavily reworked before the right balance was found. It is now FA. I am not advocating that we heavily rewrite this article or even go for peer review, but I want to you think about even recognizing this article a few years from now. Should it just be a data sheet of how nominal the non-disaster mission was or should you be able to read the lead and say, "Oh yeah, that mission. It is a human thing. The engineering-data-oriented people finally went and recreated STS-51-L so that they could have their uniform data sheet, which is fine but it seems to me that until we impose such a structural approach it is all-or-nothing: any one article has to be one or the other; either human story or dry data sheet. It is certainly not worth trying to create a "list of descriptions of memorable but non-disaster Shuttle flights", but again, I think that the lead is supposed to inform the reader in such a way that not reading the whole article before being reminded of which flight is being talked about should be a goal. I suppose that Morgan's involvement will suffice.--76.204.176.255 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I posted above, after the mission is over, the mission articles get re-written, condensed, and made so that the average reader, from a historical perspective, would (hopefully) find them interesting. That's part of what the WikiSpace Project is about. And the tile issue receives plenty of coverage in the article, as does Morgan's participation and contributions. They are both mentioned often, and the tile damage was updated daily in the summaries as to what was being done, decided, etc. I would agree that as the mission is happening, it tends to be more "techno-centric", and I do agree with you that it needs re-writing. However, the biggest difference is that this is "just" a mission, it isn't a disaster, tragedy, or a huge big deal, in the grand scheme of things, so the "human" factor really can't enter into the article like it does with the Challenger or Columbia articles. Those will strike a chord in everyone, but ultimately, this will really only capture true enthusiasts or historians of space travel. And in the big picture of the mission, the tile damage truly had no effect on anything, other than on the ground, where the testing took place during the mission. To the crew, it didn't matter at all. In fact, Kelly said during the press conference that the only reason he thought about the tile during re-entry, was because he knew the media would be asking "how did you feel in re-entry knowing about the tile damage"? He said that he never once doubted the decision, and had full confidence in the vehicle. So, while I never said it shouldn't get any attention, I also don't think it should be "up-played" to be more severe than it was. Now, trust me, had something happened, then I'd sure be writing about that, and I'd be writing about how NASA said it was fine, etc. But, ultimately it was a very small part.

I'd also like to note that Morgan and NASA stressed before, throughout, and after the mission, that she was no different than any other mission specialist. She just happened to be a teacher before being an astronaut. It was the media that wanted to make her out to be something else, to connect her to Challenger every time they mention her, again, for emotional impact designed to increase circulation figures. But she, and NASA, sees her role as the same as any other astronaut. Of course she should be mentioned, and she is, heavily, but she was not the true "focus" of the mission. I guess the way I see it, there should be a balance, between the emotional, "human" side of an article, and the neutral facts. Sorry if I'm rambling, lol, I hope that makes sense~ ^Ariel♥Gold 22:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

On that matter, I find that updating the article day-to-day is a bit short-sighted. We should be able to write the past-tense historical brilliant prose correctly the first time. I guess I am aspiring to abide by Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice to try to be Mozart rather than Beethoven in that Beethoven's approach to composition was iterative whereas Mozart would compose in his head, often for years, and then commit to paper after he got it right. Obviously, wiki technology makes the Beethoven approach relatively easier, but Dijkstra's point was to encourage us to keep trying to be like Mozart anyway. That is, as long as you are not going to die as young and as suddenly as Mozart did, I suppose. It is a matter of quality and, to a lesser degree, efficiency. I think that Dijkstra felt that the process of the human mind thinking rather than doing in a rush might yield a level of quality that is otherwise unobtainable.--SallyForth123 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)