Talk:STS-119/Archive 1

Archive 1

Crew

I have noticed that the list of the crew (Lee Archambault, Antonelli, Phillips...) is removed regularly. It is provided by http://www.spacefacts.de.

So either a) we consider spacefacts.de as a reliable source or b) spacefacts.de is not reliable and then it should stop to be provided as external link for all astronaut biographies on wikipedia. Hektor 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it because the source given was copied from the STS-123 page, and had nothing to do with STS-119; NASA has not even approved the mission, it is still under review. I'd like to know where spacefacts.de gets their information, but it is not released or announced by NASA, and therefore I'm not sure it should be included until it is official. Spacefacts.de can easily be used as an external link, and perhaps that is what should be until it is official. Spacefacts.de doesn't provide sources for any of their information, nor do they have reporters on-site at NASA facilities, so I'm not sure how much weight should be put into it. I personally feel that for the integrity of Wikipedia, until NASA has made an official crew announcement, it should be left as "To be announced", because anything else is speculation. That's my thought on it. If Spacefacts.de provided the source of the information, it might be a different story. Even when information is released in advance on places like NASASpaceflight.com's L2 forum, it can't be used, because it is not official or verifiable. This qualifies as not being verifiable. Ariel♥Gold 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So why are we linking to these unreliable web sites in a lot of wikipedia articles ? Hektor 05:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that spacefacts.de is "unreliable" per se, but I also am not sure that it would technically fit the reliable sources criteria. However, I've yet to see an article link to spacefacts.de and not have that same information backed up by other sources as well, (usually NASA) and in that alone, it could be argued that spacefacts.de is reliable because their information matches NASA's. However, I've also not seen a situation such as this, where Spacefacts.de has information on a flight that hasn't even been announced. While I'd like to know where they got that information, I just think that since the flight isn't even approved yet, it could be argued that the info isn't verifiable. And note that I don't say this information is incorrect, this very well could be the crew assigned, but a lot can happen between now and when this flight is scheduled, and it just seems that there's no rush to have a crew listed. If you feel that spacefacts.de is a credible source, feel free to add it, with that as a reference. The reason I removed the previous list was that it used a source that had nothing to do with STS-119, unlike your addition, which gave the proper source. And note that my opinions are just that, my personal opinions, nothing says you have to agree with them, lol. :) Ariel♥Gold 11:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes

At one time this article should detail that sts-119 is out of sequence due to the columbia crash putting pressure on the ISS assembly schedule to bring the international components up at an earlier time. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it out of order? shouldnt this be named sts 127? Lovingnews1989 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

IT would have been, but due to the loss of Columbia, NASA bumped up a flight in order to get some crtical supplies to the space station. Therefore STS-119 is ahead of STS-127.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ThanksLovingnews1989 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Processing

If Atlantis is in the VAB awaiting a new launch date, how is Discovery going to be prepped? "Atlantis was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building on October 20 where it is awaiting its new launch date." --Resplendent (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several bays, which are called High Bays. I belive there are 3 so up to 3 shuttles can be mated and preped at the same time. The VAB was built so they could get multiuple Apollo missions ready at the same time.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! --Resplendent (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. 2 are used for mating, and the 3rd is used for stacking the solid rocket boosters. As far as I'm aware the 3rd bay can theoretically house a full shuttle stack, but it has never been actually done (at least not that i'm aware of). The reason would be primarily, that the stack would have to circle around the entire VAB building in a series of comparatively complicated maneuvers. So it is unlikely that any actual shuttle/tank mating would take place in the 3rd bay. We will likely see that boosters are build in bay 3, and then when endeavour is launched, the booster stack will move to the freed bay (and no earlier, because Endeavour needs to be able to roll back before it launches of course). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That is correct that High Bay 3 is not used for matting the orbiter to its external tank/SRB's. However in a pinch it can be used to do so, but like you said lots of complex maneuvers are needed to get it out and to the pad. Also Endeavour is not going to be rolling back to the VAB. It will only roll about halfway back and then start heading off to pad 39A.--Navy blue84 (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But the bay still needs to be available in case the weather turns or something. Whenever a shuttle is on a pad, up until it's launched, an empty bay is reserved for it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there are 3 bays. Bays 1 and 2 are used for matting a shuttle. I belive they were putting Atlantis in bay 2 and bay 3 would be kept open for Endevour. I am not sure if they are now going to use Atlantis(if they can get the docking system in it, while its in the upright position) as the LON for STS-126. Discovery processing wouldn't begin until late December or early January anyways, plus I am not sure there processing of it in the OPF is done or close to being done. Plus the severe weather that would force them back the VAB is unlikely at this time of year. They can move in and out of the diffrent bays without having to go outside, as they used them to prep the Saturn rockets for launches in there. I will see if I can find exactly where it is being housed, as I am sure it is out there somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navy blue84 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. There are four High Bays in the VAB, not three. Two of them have been used in the shuttle program, Bays 1 & 3, located on the east-facing side of the building. Up to two shuttles can be stacked at the same time. It is possible to use at least one of the other bays, 2 or 4 which are on the west side of the building, as a hurricane shelter only and for no other reasons. But it is incorrect that they use only one bay or that they use one for stacking boosters and then move the shuttle to another bay.

Each bay is independant and accessibly only from the outside doors (the 500 foot high doors you see in photos). You cannot move a shuttle or the mobile launch platform between bays inside the building. And they have not always kept one of the operational bays open just in case. In 1990, a famous photo of two shuttles outside the VAB resulted when rollbacks and a lack of space meant they had to leave them outside overnight.

And no, they cannot open the payload bay doors in the VAB. The orbiter would be destacked and taken back to the Orbiter Processing Facility to do that. --CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this was brought up. Like I said there won't be an issue anyways as STS-119 won't be ready to be rolled over to the VAB until sometime in late December or early January. Even if a rescue is needed there is still the one high bay open. The likely hood STS-126 will need to be delayed is getting less and less likely with each day and each series of reveiws. So processing for STS-119 should ne be affected at all even if Atlantis is delayed until after 119, which is still possible.--Navy blue84 (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding launch date

If Space Shuttle Atlantis launches on schedule on February 17, could Discovery make a March liftoff date?

Discovery would be launching in March anyways if STS-125/Atlantis launches in February. I assume you mean could they launch in January? If so then it is possible, but not likely.--Navy blue84 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I was just asking if Discovery would launch in March if Atlantis launched in February. When Atlantis was going to go up this October before the malfunction on Hubble, Endeavour was scheduled to lift off in November. I was just wondering if that would be the case now that Atlantis is launching in February.

--68.60.67.149 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Discovery could still launch in February. As soon as it get cleared as the rescue vehicle(assuming STS-125 launches before STS-119) then it will be rolled over to pad 39A(assuming they do it that way again). However since Feb. is a short month, the likely hood of a February launch is slim and more likely to be an early March launch.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw on launchphotography.com that NASA was making a decision on whether they should launch Atlantis first or Discovery, and that decision will be made over the next few weeks or so. In that scenario, Atlantis would probably launch in early-mid April with Endeavour as its rescue vehicle again.

--68.60.67.149 (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats what a lot of people are thinking. A lot of it has to do with what crew is going to be ready first. The STS-125 crew basically has to retrain for at least one whole space walk. Therefore STS-119 would be likely to fly first.--Navy blue84 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Some other reasons that Discovery could fly first could be training delays or even more anamolies on the Hubble Space Telescope. If it is all of those, Atlantis would most likely not fly unitl at least mid-May or early June. I would really feel sorry for the astronauts on that mission if that were to happen. Some of them have never even been in space before.

--68.60.67.149 (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just saw now that Atlantis will not launch until April or May 2009. Poor astronauts.

--68.60.67.149 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats right. However they haven't set it in stone and it could be launched still in Feb., but its not likely.--Navy blue84 (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. As a matter of fact, it is probably certain that an April or May launch target may be solid. I saw on the NASA space shuttle website that the February target was just an estimate. Engineers have done an assessment on all of the work needed to be done to get that data handling unit ready for flight. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are still testing and doing assessments to see when they can launch. I would say that STS-119 will launch on time in February and STS-125 sometime after STS-127.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just clarifying: are you saying that Atlantis could launch on mission STS-125 after Endeavour launches on mission STS-127 which is currently scheduled for May 15? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is possible. If they don't have the equipment ready, or if the astronauts aren't ready to actually do the spacewalk.--Navy blue84 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. But I think that is very unlikely, because by then, the astronauts should be ready for their spacewalks, and the equipment should be ready to go. But you could be right, because there could be a delay in processing the equipment, but you never know. I think the flight order will go like this: STS-126 will launch on November 14, STS-119 on February 12, and STS-125 in April or May. Under that condition, STS-127 would probably launch in June with STS-128 in October or November, and then STS-129 and STS-130 would slip to 2010. If STS-125 launches after STS-127, it would probably be in July, with STS-128 (which would probably have Discovery flying instead of Atlantis) launching in August, and the rest of the flight order (STS-129 to STS-133 or STS-134) being on schedule, except with different orbiters due to the delay. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update to response: I saw on Spaceflightnow.com that Atlantis' stack will now be used on Discovery's STS-119 mission. They are also saying that the next earliest possible launch date for Atlantis is April 17, and that the latest is May 12. Now I'm starting to agree with you that STS-127 could possibly launch before STS-125. Atlantis could be delayed further if there are ET manufacturing delays. --68.62.106.16 (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer a question, no STS-119 could not have moved up. Feb. 12 is the first date after a beta-angle cutout from Jan. 26 to Feb. 11 in which they could not launch to the ISS.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw on nasaspaceflight.com that the Hubble delay has pushed NASA's 2009 shuttle launch schedule. A decision on whether STS-125 will launch before STS-127 or vice versa will not be made until March 20, 2009. But I still agree that Endeavour could liftoff in May before Atlantis does to Hubble. Once Atlantis is de-mated from its current ET/SRB stack, it will need a whole new stack. The delay could either be from a delay in processing equipment and/or another anomaly, or it could be ET manufacturing delays. I hope that it is none of those. The Ares I-X test flight will not be until October 2009 and may be delayed even further. That would really hurt the Constellation program. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth adding to the article that this mission has the possibility of being delayed to April if there are more problems to the GH2 Flow Control Valves (FCVs)? --68.60.67.149 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it should. The only reason it was mentioned, and the only place I seen it mentioned was NSF, is an absolute worse case scenario. If they do end up replacing them, it will only be a few day delay, after they receive the parts. I think it is likely that the flight will go ahead as planned within a few days of the Feb. 22 date. I doubt they would have put the valves back in if there was any possibility that they could fail.--Navy blue84 (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am watching NASA TV right now, and I heard that the launch has been postponed, and a launch date has yet to be determined. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

NASA officials said that they have until March 12 to get Discovery off the ground. If they don't launch by then, they'll have to wait till April 7 to do so. According to Space.com, a delay to that date will have a ripple effect on the manifest of the 9 remaining shuttle missions. So now it seems that if Atlantis/STS-125 is going to be delayed, it's gonna be from the delay of Discovery/STS-119. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Landing date

Why was the landing date changed back to March 30? NASA's shuttle page says the mission will last 13 days thus a landing on the 28th. I will change the date back now. If you don't agree with this edit, then please explain why. --68.60.67.149 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

March 15 (Flight Day 1, Launch)

Plan

• Launch
• Payload bay door opening
• Ku-Band antenna deployment - done 7:33pm EDT, activation 7:35pm EDT
• Shuttle Robotic Arm activation
• Umbilical well and handheld External Tank photo and TV downlink

March 16 (Flight Day 2, Thermal Protection System Inspection)

Plan

• Discovery Thermal Protection System survey with Shuttle Robotic Arm/Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS)
• Extravehicular mobility unit checkout
• Centerline camera installation
• Orbiter Docking System ring extension
• Orbital Maneuvering System Pod survey
• Rendezvous tools checkout

March 17 (Flight Day 3, Rendezvous)

Plan

• Rendezvous with the International Space Station
• Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver photography by the Expedition 18 Crew
• Docking to Harmony/Pressurized Mating Adapter-2
• Hatch opening and welcoming
• Wakata and Magnus exchange Soyuz Seatliners; Wakata joins Expedition 18, Magnus joins the STS-119 Crew
• U.S. Spacesuit transfer from Discovery to ISS

March 18 (Flight Day 4, Cargo Bay Activities)

Plan

• Canadarm2 grapple and unberth of S6 Truss from Discovery’s Payload Bay
• Canadarm2 handoff of S6 Truss to Shuttle Robotic Arm
• Canadarm2 translation to S6 installation worksite
• Shuttle Robotic Arm handoff of S6 Truss back to Canadarm2
• Spacewalk 1 procedure review
• Spacewalk 1 campout by Swanson and Arnold

March 19 (Flight Day 5, Spacewalk 1)

Plan

• Spacewalk preparations
• Spacewalk by Swanson and Arnold (S6 installation and umbilical connections, Solar Array Blanket Box release and unstow)
• S6 Truss Photovoltaic Radiator deployment

March 20 Flight Day 6, OBSS transfer

Plan

• Canadarm2 grapple of OBSS and handoff to Shuttle Robotic Arm
• Shuttle Robotic Arm/OBSS focused inspection of Discovery’s Thermal Protection System, if required
• Shuttle/Station transfers
• Spacewalk 2 procedure review
• Spacewalk 2 campout by Swanson and Acaba

March 21 Flight Day 7, Spacewalk 2

Plan

• Spacewalk Preparations
• Spacewalk 2 by Swanson and Acaba (P6 Battery Replacement Preparations for STS-127 Spacewalks, Deployment of P3 and S3 Truss Payload Attachment Systems, P1/P3 Fluid Jumper Connections and Radiator Beam Valve Module Thermal Cover Removal and P6 Power and Data Grapple Fixture Retrieval)
• Shuttle/Station Transfers
• Water Recovery System Distillation Assembly Replacement

March 22 Flight Day 8, Solar Array deployment

Plan

• S6 1B and 3B Channel Solar Array Deployments (If no focused inspection is required, the solar array deployment activity will move to Flight Day 6.)
• Shuttle/Station Transfers
• Spacewalk 3 Procedure Review
• Spacewalk Campout by Acaba and Arnold

March 23 Flight Day 9, Spacewalk 3

Plan

• Spacewalk Preparations
• Spacewalk 3 by Acaba and Arnold (CETA Cart Relocation, Dextre Cover Removal Tasks, Canadarm2 Latching End Effector B Lubrication, P1 and S0 Truss Remote Power Control Module Replacement)
• Shuttle/Station Transfers

March 24 Flight Day 10, Transfers and news conference

Plan

• Crew Off Duty Period
• Shuttle/ISS Transfers
• Joint Crew News Conference
• Spacewalk 4 Procedure Review
• Spacewalk 4 Campout by Swanson and Arnold

March 25 Flight Day 11, Spacewalk 4

Plan

• Spacewalk Preparations
• Spacewalk 4 by Swanson and Arnold (Payload Attachment System Deployments, Video Signal Converter Installation, Fiber Optic Cable Installation) • Shuttle/Station Transfers

March 26 Flight Day 12, Transfers and pre-docking

Plan

• Final Post-Spacewalk Hardware Transfers
• Crew Off Duty Periods
• Final Farewells and Hatch Closure
• Centerline Camera Installation

March 27 Flight Day 13 Leave ISS

Plan

• Undocking
• Flyaround of the International Space Station
• Final Separation
• OBSS Late Inspection of Discovery’s Thermal Protection System

March 28 Flight Day 14 Cleanup

Plan

• Flight Control System Checkout
• Reaction Control System Hot-Fire Test
• Cabin Stowage
• Magnus’ Recumbent Seat Setup
• Crew Deorbit Briefing
• Ku-Band Antenna Stowage

March 28 Flight Day 15, Landing

Plan

• Deorbit Preparations
• Payload Bay Door Closing
• Deorbit Burn
• Kennedy Space Center Landing

• • The presskit's daily schedule will help track documentation of the completed activities. ALSO, having short subjects in each of the Flight Day N sections makes it easier to find activities. In looking back at all the previous STS missions, a research or user has to read more to find the info needed. I think wiki-editors forget how the general public may use Wiki articles, while formating and editing articles. I suggest we add short subject matters, like above, to all our STS articles. Let's make it easier for our readers. Another exciting STS mission is on its way... cheers... Lance LanceBarber (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Antonelli

I know there has been discussion in the past about not having 'call signs' in the "Crew" list (to which I agree), but since NASA documents refer to Antonelli as "Tony", in nearly every instance, (and it isn't his call sign, it is the name he chooses to go by, rather than Dominic), I think that in this case in the "Crew notes", it should read [[Dominic A. Antonelli|Dominic A. (Tony) Antonelli]], just like NASA does on the Crew page, to explain why all documents and references to him, call him "Tony". For a reader unfamiliar with the astronauts, this would explain the references and why he is called Tony. To this end, I have gone ahead and done so, and changed the wake up call to reflect his chosen name, rather than the one he does not use. Ariel♥Gold 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)