Jump to content

Talk:STS-135/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Not a reliable source

Hallo friends. Nasaspaceflight.com is NOT reliable source, even though they claim to be. Some of the people in that forum are reliable on their subject of expertise, though. Always check with someone, and get their names in the article.

It is unlikely that sts-135 will fly, and following missions have basically zero chances (but are not yet impossible). According to "officially unverified chatter" (with people that don't want to be officially quoted but who know what they are doing, not with fools) here is the possible scenario:

- after sts-133 successfully returns in late september or october (it must not be delayed any further) and provided that there is political will to do so, news is broken to the public that the shuttle LON had not been really considered, not since quite some time. And that reliance was on the Soyuz rescue

- there is approval to fly sts-135 and someone takes responsibility to say so, under the untold agreement already in force which contemplates a russian rescue

- if the crew will be four people (additional negotiations are ongoing with the russians because flying a fifth crewmember is a problem if the ISS has a six people crew at sts-135 time) here is the plan: STS-135 flies in the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011, after crew rotation (possibly after iss crew is reduced to 5) and there will be six ISS (three of them recently arrived + other three) and four STS veteran astronauts (there is a small possibility of 5 iss crew and 5 shuttle people)

- So there is 10 people and two Soyuz docked, with six seats

- if there is a problem, orbiter is undocked and jettisoned. Possibly there will be rearrangement between the Soyuzes docked and those still on the ground, exchanging vehicles in regards to the next three people due to leave on next crew rotation - in order to get them to land early; this to reduce iss consumes

- people are there with enough supplies for a long time but with four people without emergency seats

- in March Soyuz goes up with one cosmonaut and comes down with three people (negotiations are ongoing on who would fly down)

- on the Soyuz there are still two emergency seats missing, but it's much less crowded

- in May a second Soyuz flies up with one cosmonaut and three people fly down

- crew rotation is messed and next vehicles are launched earlier, as early as possible; Russian space program loses a bunch of revenue from space tourists and they will give a hard time to the NASA, after all it's their vehicle that failed.

Thank you - feel free to include all, or none, in the main article Thank you for all the work on wikipedia Daniela

  • There are several things wrong with your comments. First NSF is a reliable source as there are lots of NASA folks on the forums. This has also been proven at WP:RS. Second, it is known that there is an extra set of solid rocket boosters, external tank and everything needed for a rescue mission for STS-133. Third it has been planed for sometime now that if a shuttle rescue was not viable the Russians would send up Soyuz capsules to rescue the stranded astro's. Fourth, there will be no tourists going to station for a long time. This has been known since the shuttle retirement date was set and the plans for full crew rotations to be carried out via Soyuz. As for the consumables situation, there are Progress, ATV's and HTV's scheduled and lots of consumable replenishment capabilities planed and there is usually a lot of consumable on board to support a stranded shuttle crew. Most of your comments are purely speculation. While yes STS-135 is not a for sure mission, it is very likely the way things are going.--NavyBlue84 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


Dear Navyblue84 (apologies that this it is not formatted properly):

1) NSF is a reliable source? If you say so.... You are, indeed, correct that many NASA folks are on the forum, this is why it is important to attribute to "so and so" and not to NSF, and then, the readers will draw their own conclusions. I mean, these are the folks that, in order to catch some attention and a few extra readers, have written that STS-130 was going to be delayed for weeks, or that there was even the possibility of a mission swap! which had zero chance - well, ok, not zero, but comparable to the chance that the mission was totally cancelled and payload left on the ground.... or that the manifest is abruptly cut off at this point! Not zero, ok, but quite enough close to zero.

2) STS-335 will be ready and the Atlantis stack processing will be quite well along the way when STS-133 returns; not only that, but the funds to fly it are already existing. However someone will have to sign that decision as I think even the Congress mandates that a LON is available. Someone will do that? Possible. I would not say it is "very likely", even though I would say STS-135 is more likely to fly than to stay on ground. By the way at this point I don't think there is a list of parts that would fly on the ELC (if it was "very likely", people would fight to reserve a spot for their particular part....) if STS-135 flies. If it is a rescue mission, it would bring up almost exclusively consumables. Are you aware of a list of parts being compiled?

3) You are correct but officially this "Pulcinella secret" is said nowhere, and by the way, how comes NSF never mentioned such a fantastic scoop and wrote a featured article about it? In any case, if STS-135 flies, someone will have to explain the Pulcinella's secret to the media and to the politicians. (Pulcinella's secret, in the italian language, means something that everyone knows and that everyone pretends not knowing; also, everyone knows it's public knowledge but everyone behaves as if no one else knew it either)

4) It is now expected that next tourist fly in 2013 I think; however the scenario I envisioned would mess up the crew arrangements of ISS expeditions for quite a while. And of course push back the availability of "saleable" seats for quite a while as well. By the way, crew rotation via shuttle was terminated a while ago, the last one was Nicole Stott but even before that, crew rotation via shuttle had not been used for a few months

5) It is hard to say for how long the station can support ten people; of course there are well more than enough supplies for many months, but with ten people and with no Orbiter, the wear on critical subsystems would be something to worry about, especially given that there is no possibility to evacuate the station if a problem happens. As a result, rearrangement of the order of rotation flights would be considered. Please note that direct crew rotation is not commonly used nor is envisioned for the near future, and that the situation in which, for a few days, nine people were on the ISS (with no orbiter), has put the station (and the cosmonauts) to the test.

Finally please notice I put this on a "talk" page, I am not interested to edit the article. Anyone who is curious, should ask people who know, as I did. Anyone who just wants to confirm their beliefs, then the internet (especially NSF) is the right place :-/

PS Yes I am the same user who wrote the comment above NavyBlue84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.132.79 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

  • 1. There was a discussion on WP:RS some time ago about whether or not NSF was reliable, it was determined it was. As for the STS-130 issues, NSF was not the only ones to pick up on this. FOX news, CBS (Bill Harwood), SpaceFlightNow and all the others you see at the press briefings wrote articles on it. Only difference was NSF broke the stories first.

2. As it stands, STS-135 is carrying an MPLM not an ELC. They will also pack it to the max with supplies. This could change, but highly unlikely. As for what will be carried up, there would be some consumables such as LiOh canisters, food, water and some science experiments.

3. I am not sure what you are referring to here. If it is the Soyuz rescue option, it is not an "official" option, only one that has been discussed.

4. I have not seen anything that has said tourists will fly in 2013. It will be impossible, since Orion/Ares 1 won't be ready until 2014 at the earliest. Also they aren't going to send a tourist up there for 6 months. Not to mention so many seats on the Soyuz has been bought by NASA/JAXA/ESA/CSA and the remaining are for Russians (at least 1 Russian per Soyuz). Also the crew size is and will be 6, and there are only 3 seats per Soyuz. I am also aware crew rotation has not been done by shuttle for sometime now. If they send 6 people to ISS, and rescue is needed, only 2 Soyuz are needed. They can be flown and docked without crew, and if need be docked by crew on ISS (this is done by using the kurus system).

5. Check out STS-3xx. This will explain how long the ISS can support a full ISS crew and a stranded shuttle crew. I am well aware of how the ISS crew rotations are done. There is also options for delaying crew launches until a cargo vehicle can get to ISS, and or de-crew the ISS for a period if need be (done for a period of time when shuttle was grounded post STS-107). Lots of studies have been done on what would happen if there were a problem with shuttle and a crew were stranded. I think reading the STS-3xx article should give you more answers about contingency situations. Also if you want more info, the I suggest going to NSF or the other forums and website dedicated to space flight.--NavyBlue84 00:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the typo, I meant MPLM "Raffaello" of course. Which will be filled with consumables if the flight is used as a LON (very unlikely at this point), plus there may be some small opportunity payloads as usual. However if the flight would become a regular logistics mission, are you aware of a list of parts that would be packed up and shipped upstairs? The ISS hardly needs consumables (unless extra people are stuck there for contingency reasons for an extended period) not only because it has ample supplies, but also because the current resupply vessels work just fine. According to my sources, this angered very much the decision makers: NASA requests an extra flight (at the taxpayer's expense, it goes without saying) and does not even bother to think about what exactly to do with it (i.e. propose a list of parts that require the Shuttle payload upmass and volume and that would protect against failure of ISS critical systems in the future, also in sight of the extension beyond 2020 which is now likely). Do you have news of a list of parts that was actually compiled? Or do you confirm that NASA yet again did not do their homework? By the way, looks like also NSF heard news that the decision makers won't just stamp their approval on STS-135 for no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.132.79 (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As of yet I have not seen a list of parts. But it more then likely be some science experiments, consumables like food, and other stuff that can't be carried by progress/ATV/HTV. I would also guess that maybe something like another ATA or NTA would be carried up, but that is only speculation on my part. If STS-135 is funded, we probably won't know until a little after it is confirmed.--NavyBlue84 04:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission cancelled

[1] Colds7ream (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't say that; the vast amount of internal documentation that NASA produced suggests otherwise. Besides, its still a possibility in the event of unforeseen circumstances. Colds7ream (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No references in article

This article currently has no inline references/footnotes or general references in the References section. That's why I changed the tag to an Unreferenced tag at the top. Try to help remedy this. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • The only reference provided is from NASASpaceflight, a British site with no link with NASA whatsoever. NASA has never released any information about such a mission. Hektor (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have my doubts about a "NASA mission" without any source from NASA. We have only one single source. Is NASASpaceflight.com a reliable media ? It is done by a guy from UK, I have seen nothing about STS-135 from US media. Hektor (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This article has no credible references at all. It says Atlantis may also be considered the "least fit" of the orbiters, as it was discovered to have unrepairable tank issues and a host of other problems which caused extreme repair following its STS-125 flight to the Hubble Space Telescope.. Are there any solid references that describe major problems with Atlantis? I highly doubt. Atlantis does not have a Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System unlike Endeavour and Discovery. But for a short mission like STS 135 such a capability is not required. I believe that NASA would not choose Atlantis to fly STS 135 if it has these so called problems. Hence, who ever wrote this piece of information must give credible and reliable references. 112.135.208.182 (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is least fit. Read the Wikipedia article on Space Shuttle Atlantis, a good start. OMDP has been delayed to accomodate the current manifest, and some pressure vessels are operated with precautions (vs. other shuttles). Does not mean it is not 'fit to fly STS-135'. But its siblings are in a better shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.116.98 (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Atlantis or Discovery?

If STS-135 will be flown will it be with Atlantis or with Discovery ?. I read in this page that LON for STS-134 (now pushed back to at least November 2010) will also be done by Discovery. Apart from very few discussions in NASAspaceflight.com forum pages, I could not find an official NASA word/page on the LON mission for STS-134 (that Discovery will fly instead of Atlantis if it is needed). Hence can some one please add official references or clarify this point? Also how likely will STS-135 fly since it would have to be in 2011 and that NASA has no allocated budget for the space shuttle program for 2011? 152.226.7.202 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Once again : this amounts to fan cruft. Of course this has probably been discussed internally at NASA, but NASA has never and will never communicate on such a mission, which will never happen. We don't have articles about movies which are in development hell, why would we have an article about STS-135 ? Why not Back to the Future IV or Star Wars Episode VII ? Hektor (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hektor makes a good point. There is no "official" word as yet on which orbiter will fly STS-135/335. The speculation I have read is Atlantis since it has gone through all the paperwork to be cleared for LON status for STS-134. It would make sense and probably be easiest to process Atlantis for STS-335/135 since Discovery will only have about 60 days before STS-134 launches (barring any more major delays to AMS). A typical flow lasts about 100 days. While that is within CSCS for the ISS to support a stranded STS-134 crew, I would bet they would not want to use it. In the end it comes down to can the ISS support a stranded shuttle crew until Discovery is ready. It should also be noted that the plan for STS-135 is on administrator Bolden's desk for approval to go fly, it just needs his signature for them to go actually plan and fly it. Hopefully that gets done soon.--NavyBlue84 16:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I totally agree with Hektor and NavyBlue84. So far, STS -135 and LON mission for STS-134 information has not been officially released by NASA. Hence, the information on STS-135 page is totally miss leading. 152.226.7.202 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think assigning Atlantis to STS 335 (LON mission for STS 134) does not directly imply that it will be also be assigned to STS-135 (if it happens!). But I believe if STS-135 happens, then Atlantis has a higher chance of grabbing it since Atlantis will undergo processing for STS-134 LON mission at the completion of STS-132. Lets wait and see. On May 5, 2010, at the post FRR meeting of STS 132, Bill Gerstenmaier mentioned that NASA can wait till end of June 2010 to hear about STS-135 and no more than that. Hence, I think at the end of June, we will get a clear picture of whether STS-135 will go up or not and if it is approved, which orbiter will fly that mission. 152.226.7.202 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Discovery will fly this mission

Just change the shuttle to Discovery instead of Atlantis, and that´s just because STS-134 (Endeavour) will be the final shuttle mission to fly in Nov. So NASA choose Discovery on STS-335/135 because it´s cheaper to get her ready after STS-133 instead of keeping Atlantis in service after STS-132. I´m sorry for my bad english.. Opelzafira (talk) 15.51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Do you have any sources that say that? I don't think its cheaper to process one shuttle rather then another. A source will be needed for that change.--NavyBlue84 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Moving to STS-135

The article reports that CDR Lindsey will move to STS-135 if it gets the approval. I think this is incorrect as the way things go these days. STS-133 is only 3 months away and to date nothing is mentioned about STS-135. Hence, it is highly unlikely that Lindsey will make such a move between missions. Also STS-133 patch is finalized, PAO events are happening (example Robonaut 2 event two days ago) all with Lindsey as the CDR. Either this part must be removed from the article or proper upto date citation must be added 137.132.250.6 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

landing date / time

what is the source of the landing date/time?--RadioFan (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

STS-135 patch JUST RELEASED

http://www.collectspace.com/review/sts135_patch01.jpg

'STS-135 mission patch The STS-135 patch represents the space shuttle embarking on its mission to resupply the International Space Station. The shuttle is centered over elements of the NASA emblem depicting how the shuttle has been at the heart of NASA for the last 30 years. It also pays tribute to the entire NASA and contractor team that made possible all the incredible accomplishments of the space shuttle.

Omega, the last letter in the Greek alphabet, recognizes this mission as the last flight of the space shuttle program.

The STS-135 mission will launch on space shuttle Atlantis carrying the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module to deliver supplies, logistics and spare parts to the International Space Station. The crew is led by commander Chris Ferguson, pilot Doug Hurley and mission specialists Sandra Magnus and Rex Walheim.'

Anyone care to post this instead of the shuttle program logo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.24.39 (talk) 23 January 2011 20:33

Can not be added until ofically released by NASA. CollectSpace is not primary reliable source for this stuff. Plus not to mention they are more of a forum, which is not an RS.--NavyBlue84 15:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)A
Florida Today published a story today with an image of the patch. Thats good enough for me. I wouldn't dismiss CollectSpace so quickly. They maintain NASA press credentials and you'll see a representative at every press conference held at KSC. The website has a forum and that's certainly not a reliable source, but the news section is. You'll frequently see CollectSpace cited as a source in print and broadcast news sources. Often because they beat others to the story.--RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification - if needed - of the status of STS-135

A Photo Index has been released by NASA of the patch, crew in training, and EVA excerzies are now avalible by NASA. If it was still STS-335, they would have addressed it as a 'possible' space shuttle mission. Also the patch also confirms the official status of 135.

Enjoy. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-135/ndxpage1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.24.39 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mission is back again?

See [2] 152.226.7.202 (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really say anything. Everything in there was already known a long time ago. Plus I think he has the Soyuz rescue stuff wrong. Also it has been said by several very reliable sources that STS-135 will fly only if an extreme need arises. I guess we will have to wait and see if its true, I just wouldn't hold my breath!--NavyBlue84 17:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd hate to be on that mission. I can see it all now. The mission is a go, but the crew will have to provide their own fueling and propellants, and btw Mission Control is now being outsourced to Bangalore. "Hello? Yes, this is mission of the control, and I am very much wishing you to press the button which you have that is marked 'RE-ENTRY'." "What do you mean, press 'RE-ENTRY', Houston? There's no button labeled 'RE-ENTRY' on the panel!" "Oh, I am very much sorry, please hold and I will talk with my mission support specialist." (My apologies to any native of India who is offended by this joke, but this is America, Land of Outsourcing. Capedude2005 (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

LON for STS-135

The article contains no description of the STS-135 rescue plan. AFAIK the crewmembers are only 4 (instead of the regular 6 or 7) so that they can be rescued on subsequent Soyuz flights. Alinor (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mission confirmed

NASA managers have confirmed that STS-135 is going ahead, with Atlantis as the allocated orbiter: [3]. Colds7ream (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They've confirmed that planning for the mission is going ahead. Until funding is approved by Congress, the mission isn't official and is not on the schedule. Rillian (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Congress has approved funding, all that's left is the Presidential signature. :-) Hey look, it would appear that NASASpaceflight.com is a reliable source! [4] Colds7ream (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There are sectors of wikipedia which are not handled seriously. Human spaceflight is one of them. The articles are edited by space cadets who are only taking into account the references which are in agreement with their dreams. I still fail to find any information originating from NASA about such a flight. Hektor (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
[5] its on page 53. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There is also now a press release from NASA here.--NavyBlue84 10:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
BOOM! Does it burn, Hektor? Colds7ream (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Curiously, there is no mention of an extra Shuttle flight in this press release from NASA. Hektor (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The press release notes the passage of the bill, and the bill specifically tells NASA to go and fly the mission. What more do you want? Colds7ream (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This aviationweek.com article mentions that the House "passed the Senate’s version of NASA’s three-year authorization bill late Sept. 29" but also says:

According to NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, the agency expects President Obama to sign off on the authorization within the next 10 days. But funding the blueprint for NASA is another story, as Congress has passed a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations until Dec. 3. Until a new NASA appropriation for Fiscal 2011 is passed, it remains to be seen if and how STS-135 and other programs will be funded.

While STS-135 seems likely to fly, stating it as a foregone conclusion is not particularly encyclopedic. -- 58.147.58.211 (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree. How not to be uncomfortable to have STS-135 presented in wikipedia as a fact without a single source originating from NASA mentioning this flight ? Once again, I think this matter is not handled seriously. Hektor (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
NASA doesn't always give all the details in a press release. A little search would have given you this and this. Both sources are reliable and have been debated in the past. If that's not enough then nothing ever will be.--NavyBlue84 13:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As long as it is not announced by NASA it shouldn't be in wikipedia. Second guessing what NASA will do is OR. Hektor (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
How can it be OR? Seriously, I am asking a serious question! Both the second ref's are reliable and not only that have a ton of quotes from people saying the shuttle program is authorized through 2011. That is not OR, that is FACT. Not to mention the bill that Colds7ream linked to specifically states STS-135 is to be added to the manifest. The bill linked is the bill passed, therefore the adding that this mission is going to happen is not OR and should be added.--NavyBlue84 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is fine. It is a confirmed mission in the planning stages. What many people fail to understand is that NASA doesn't decide what NASA will do. Congress directs NASA to undertake programs and projects and this case, specific missions. Which is what this bill has done. As long as the bill says that NASA will fly an additional Space Shuttle mission, the article is entirely appropriate and not at all premature.--RadioFan (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
But the question is, is that what this bill has done? This article from LA News Monitor says:
The act was passed on Thursday and NASA officials thanked the government for the contributions. The government will decided about the allocation of the money after the Midterm Elections on November 2nd.
Is this a two step process? Does this first bill just determine the total amount with a subsequent bill divvying it all up? Perhaps that is why NavyBlue84's nasaspaceflight.com link above discussed Bolden's lack of mention of the HLV or STS-135. Clearly STS-135 was part of the debate which led to the final amount, but are those funds lock in for that purpose at this point or could allocations be reshuffled in the next six weeks? -- 1.46.41.7 (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
And this analysis at Cosmic Log (written a few days before the bill's passage) says:
Even if the House and Senate settle on an authorization bill, a separate appropriation bill must be passed as well. The way things look now, NASA's spending would probably follow the status quo prescribed in a continuing resolution, at least until Congress convenes for a lame-duck session after the elections.
It does seem that STS-135 will almost certainly fly, but that it is as incorrect now to state that "NASA managers have confirmed that STS-135 is going ahead" as it was on 20 August. -- 1.46.41.7 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As for the reliability concern raised above. Perhaps you dont take it seriously but the astronomy and spaceflight articles (human or otherwise) are among the best articles on the English Wikipedia. They are patrolled and contributed to by some of the most knowledgable people There is a bit more technical content here than many articles which can be a bit off-putting I suppose. Also compare these articles to articles on various topics in India and Pakistan, popular music, etc. and you'll see what poor quality really looks like.--RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In all this noise I missed Colds7ream's link above to the text of S.3729, which I assume is the same as what passed the house. From pg 53:

The Administrator shall fly the Launch-On-Need Shuttle mission currently designated in the Shuttle Flight Manifest dated February 28, 2010, to the ISS in fiscal year 2011, but no earlier than June 1, 2011, unless required earlier by an operations contingency, and pending the results of the assessment required by paragraph (2) and the determination under paragraph (3)(A).

Paragraph (2) is "Assessment of Safe Means of Return" and (3)(A) is "The supply and logistics delivery requirements of the ISS." Paragraph (4) then says:

FUNDS.—Amounts authorized to be appropriated by section 101(2)(B) shall be available for the mission authorized by paragraph (1).

That certainly sounds as if congress has given the go-ahead for STS-135, but I don't understand the roll of the separate appropriation bill which won't be voted on for another six weeks. -- 1.46.41.7 (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RadioFan makes a good point. The technicality of the spaceflight articles probably could be toned down a bit, but I think a lot of people enjoy that they are technical and informatory.

As for the process, the bill passed is it. It now goes to the POTUS for signing, which is expected no more then 10 days from the date of passing. There is no setting of amount and we will decided how to allocate it later. Its all allocated and just needs the signature of the president. The second link is old, the bill that was passed is linked earlier in the discussion and is it. It says STS-135 is to fly and gives a no earlier then date. The money is "locked in", but could be changed, however it is unlikely as it would require a new bill to be passed.

The 20 August one, was the managers saying the mission is being planned. They were treating it like a real mission.--NavyBlue84 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm still confused. Are you saying that there is not a separate appropriation bill to be passed in November, or that the appropriation bill is just a formality. -- 1.46.41.7 (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not aware of a bill to be debated on Nov. 2. I don't think there will be many politicians in DC then, as the elections are on Nov. 4. I think the first link you posted, I think they are a little confused. I think this might have been the bill they were talking about, there was some talk that this bill might not be brought up until after the elections. I don't think there is another bill, it would be pointless for them to have 2 bills to do the same thing. This bill authorizes and appropriates the everything for 2011, 2012 and 2013. Hope that helps.--NavyBlue84 01:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume that "after the Midterm Elections on November 2nd" implies that the debate would be sometime after the Midterm Elections, and that those elections are on November 2nd. (That is the 1st Tuesday, right?) That would be consistent with the "lame-duck session" quote. It sounds as if there is still a second shoe to drop, although it will presumably be in support of STS-135 as well. -- 124.157.254.146 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Getting things done under the US Federal Government is generally a two-step process - authorization and appropriation. The bill just passed and awaiting the President's signature authorized NASA to conduct STS-135. What hasn't happened yet for NASA, or for any agency, is appropriation (assignment) of funds for the 2011 fiscal year (Oct 1, 2010 to Sept 30, 2011). Until a FY2011 appropriation bill is passed, all government agencies are operating under a continuing resolution that keeps funding at the same run rate as FY2010. When the final appropriations bill is passed, it could include funding for STS-135 but it could also not include funding for it, it may not include funding for STS-134, it could even not include funding for any NASA project in FY2011 (obviously unlikely). As any mission is subject to change or cancellation, I think we're fine to state now with the authorization bill passed that "STS-135 is the final scheduled mission of the Space Shuttle program." Rillian (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Rillian for the much clearer explanation. I was a little confused by the way the bill is written (and being Canadian it is much different). From the sounds of it, any funding vote will be a formality at this point. One thing though Rillian, STS-134 is being funded out of the $600million of stimulus money allocated to the SSP, so it is funded and paid for. I think most (a few who don't) agree with you that stating STS-135 is the final scheduled/planned mission of the program.--NavyBlue84 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Here is a NASA press release dated October 1 2010. It says that "The target launch dates for the last planned space shuttle flight, STS-134 on Endeavour, will be Feb. 27, 2011". This is a recent source, which says that as of last Friday the last planned space shuttle flight is STS-134, contrary to what is written in wikipedia. Hektor (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • An Oct 8 Aviation week article states "STS-133 is one of two scheduled missions remaining for the shuttle program. ... However, NASA managers are making plans to convert the STS-134 “launch-on-need” rescue mission assigned to Atlantis into an operational mission — if Congress and the White House agree on funding." -- 111.84.162.240 (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A Fox News story on Saturday's Soyuz TMA-01M docking at the ISS writes, "Endeavour's STS-134 mission next year – commanded by Mark Kelly – is the last shuttle flight currently set on NASA's books, though one more shuttle trip may be added to the lineup if President Obama signs the NASA authorization bill recently passed by Congress and it passes through an appropriation review.". -- 124.157.234.91 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What seems to be at odds here are the words "planned" and "last". The media likes to use the phrase "last planned" in association with STS-134. That is because this is the language that NASA has and continues to use in all their press releases that the mainstream media copies and pastes from. Thats just how its done. STS-135 is in a state of "mission planning". The mission has been authorized and funded by Congress for this activity and nothing else. Once complete funding has been provided for the mission (i.e. the budget to keep the necessary civil servants on staff and extend contracts for people and products needed to run the mission), then it will be the "last planned mission" until it flies and then it's the "last mission". With all this in mind, what do we do here? It isn't incorrect to call it the "last planned mission" because it has been authorized for planning. Perhaps if it were called the "last mission being planned" until full funding is approved then switching that to "last planned mission". Thoughts?--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With Obama expected to sign NASA reauthorization bill Monday and a NASA leaders conference call at 11am, perhaps we will get some sources with clearer language. -- 124.157.234.91 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It does not get any clearer. The bill passed says NASA MUST fly STS-135. That bill was signed by the president, so therefore it is law. NASA now must fly the flight, which is what they wanted.--NavyBlue84 00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Associated Press writes:

  • "There's still the matter of money. But it looks increasingly likely that NASA will get an extra space shuttle flight."
  • "Obama signed a NASA spending bill ... [which] directs NASA to move forward with an additional shuttle flight to the International Space Station, before retiring the fleet."
  • "... the funding issue should be resolved once Congress returns next month to Washington in a lame duck session. The space agency expects a final decision no later than December."
  • "Only two shuttle launches officially remain, .... The third, yet-to-be-formalized mission would take place next June."

I know that this is being pedantic, but as nearly certain as 135 is, the wording of the article, unlike the press, still violates some aspects of WP:Synth and WP:Crystal. The spaceflightnow.com article currently used as a reference even quotes Sen. Nelson:

  • "The budget authorization now must go through the appropriations process, which Nelson warned is "going to be a tough session because of the need to cut back on spending with regard to the federal deficit.""
  • ""We're going to end up having an omnibus appropriations bill," he said. "But I believe there's some hope for NASA's funding because we got a unanimous support of all of the appropriations members for the NASA budget in the Senate appropriations bill that appropriated almost identically ... to what the president is signing into law today.""

-- 111.84.235.234 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC) -- 111.84.235.234 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is no longer a bill, it's a law (everybody remember Schoolhouse Rock). The law directs what the funding will be ($989,100,000 for FY11 for the shuttle, page 11, Title I , section 101.5.A "Space Operations"). The mainstream media is talking up the money issue and it's certainly going to take some wrangling in congress but it's their problem now, not NASA's. For purposes here, it's pretty much a non-issue. If Congress cant find the funding, they dont get to pull STS-135 off the table, they've got to repeal this law and that's pretty unlikely to happen. The media is being extra careful about wording here because NASA is being extra careful about their wording. This is likely because so many people's jobs are in the balance, at least for a couple more months.--RadioFan (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert in the United States budget process, but from what I have read I think that you are incorrect, and that congress's authorization does not bind them to the appropriation. This CongressLine article mentions programs that have been authorization but never appropriated for. Today's spaceflightnow article extensively quotes Space Shuttle Program manager John Shannon, who is still speaking of "... STS-135, assuming it is approved". The gist of the article isn't that he is questioning the likelihood of 135, but more of how they juggle funds and other resources now, while operating via the continuing resolution, so that they will be in a position to fly 135 when (and if) the appropriation happens. This article does not need to extensively question the likely of 135 -- there are plenty of reliable sources describing it as a near certainty -- but the absolute wording currently used in the lead, "STS-135 will be ...", is not supported by any RS I have seen. -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been mentioned before but worth highlighting again. Dont read too much into comments from NASA PAO or various leaders. Their comments are very conservative, especially when it comes to program direction and budget issues. NASA doesn't decide what NASA does, they make recommendations and Congress decides, at least at the macro level. That behind us, you are right that the article needs to be (and has been) tweaked. The certainty in the previous wording was inappropriate. Even the appropriations issue that is being debated above behind us, the fact remains that STS135 will only fly if it is not needed as a LON mission. If that LON mission flies, there will be no STS135. I've changed the wording to include "anticipated", I think that this more accurately reflects the situation. Once STS134 flies and returns successfully, the language in that first sentence should be revisited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 October 2010
If you do that, then you also need to change it in STS-134. STS-134 won't fly if it is called up as LON, and that has not been done for any mission. The only way STS-135 won't fly is if the law is repealed, and that is highly unlikely (they have bigger laws that they want/need to repeal first). The only thing needing to happen now is for the congress to say how much money goes were.--NavyBlue84 00:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
NavyBlue84, is your assertion (that a repeal would be necessary that if they choose not to fund 135) OR, or do you have a source (beyond Schoolhouse Rock ;^)). What I've read appears to indicate that no such repeal is necessary to kill and authorized item simply by not approving funds for it. (An example is given in the CongressLine article linked above.) All RS continue to be very cautious with their wording. -- 124.157.254.185 (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's Aviation Week article: "NASA’s final scheduled shuttle missions are tentatively slated to lift off for the International Space Station on Nov. 1 and on Feb. 27, 2011." and "NASA hopes to redesignate Endeavour’s “Launch-on-Need” rescue mission as STS-135, using Atlantis. A four-member crew would lift off in late June 2011 with spare parts and other supplies to fortify the orbiting laboratory for operations well beyond the shuttle’s retirement. STS-135 remains unfunded by the White House and congressional appropriators, though it was authorized in a bill signed by President Barack Obama on Oct. 11." -- 119.31.121.88 (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's Space.com article on Discovery's MMH leak: "A third, extra shuttle mission has been approved by Congress and President Obama and is due to be reviewed by congressional appropriators later this year." -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's nasaspaceflight.com article on ISS logistics: "logistics in 2012 ... will be greatly benefitted by flying the currently unfunded STS-135 mission, planned for June 2011. STS-135 would carry the Multi Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Flight Module-2 (FM-2) called Raffaello." -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's WESH (Orlando station) article about possibly delaying 135 until Fall 2011: "Congress has authorized a final flight next summer, but has not funded it. If it gets funded, NASA officials said they are interested in delaying it as long as possible to keep the International Space Station better supplied." -- 124.157.218.53 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's Florida Today article on prospects for a later launch: "For now, that flight tentatively planned for late June is unfunded pending congressional approval of a 2011 budget, and John Shannon, the shuttle program manager, has told teams to treat it as a 50-50 proposition." and "The NASA authorization act President Barack Obama signed into law Oct. 11 recommends an additional $600 million to fly a third mission next summer, but it's uncertain if an appropriations bill will provide that funding and when the bill might be approved." -- 124.157.254.185 (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's space.com article, NASA's Extra Shuttle Flight Hangs In The Balance: "NASA has two scheduled shuttle missions, on Discovery and Endeavour, left to fly before retiring its orbiter fleet in 2011. A third, extra shuttle mission has been approved by Congress and President Obama, but still faces review by congressional appropriators later this year." as well as the quotes from John Shannon about possibly delaying 135 until fall. It is interesting how NASA's tone has changed. About this time last year, when asked about the possibility of an extra flight if the LON 335 was not needed, they said that they will do what congress tells them to do, but that it wasn't needed as flights through STS-134 took care of their manifest as it stood. Last month, after the authorization bill's passage, they described 135 as "neither a luxury nor a necessity". Now Shannon "can't overstate how much it will benefit the space station to have an additional flight in that timeframe". -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it not enough that Shannon himself states the *facts*? "Last planned flight" blah blah is ungrounded in reality. Hear the interview, it's all over the TV and the internet..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.8.14 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are asserting. -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

STS-135 is not a planned flight except in someone's wishful thinking. Hear Mr Moses right now - live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.6.171 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there transcripts available for the NASA press conferences? -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's nasaspaceflight.com article ASAP and Shuttle Program concerned over continuing STS-135 uncertainty: "The proposed STS-135 mission is currently in legislative limbo between authorization and appropriations. Congress passed bill S.3729, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, at the end of September." and "While the authorization act authorizes NASA to fly the STS-135 mission no earlier than June 1, 2011, fiscal year 2011 appropriations to fund that mandate are still forthcoming. The Space Shuttle Program cannot proceed much further with plans to fly STS-135 in the current situation." This contradicts the article's current language in STS-135#Authorization that Obama signing the bill allows "NASA to move forward with STS-135." -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • From today's MSNBC article on Discovery: "NASA has two final shuttle missions scheduled and is hoping for final funding approval from Congress for one extra flight, before retiring its three orbiters in 2011." and "Endeavour will launch on its final flight on Feb. 27, 2011, with the potential extra shuttle flight slated for no earlier than June 2011." -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So? Why not write the facts? Such as "STS-135 is a Space Shuttle mission currently under consideration. It would use the hardware that is officially being processed for STS-335 contingency. While the mission has been authorized, there is currently no appropriation and at this time it is not yet clear whether NASA administrators would be willing to fund STS-135 from other budget items" or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.9.100 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to change the "sure thing" wording that appeared to be the consensus of the established editors here, so I've been sampling the news for any references to 135 and reporting their wording here. The latest, in today's SpaceRef article on 134's SRB highbay shift, concisely states: "STS 134 is currently the last flight on the shuttle manifest. Congress recently authorized one more shuttle flight - STS 135 - but must still formally approve the funding before NASA can commit to fly the mission with shuttle Atlantis." I'll go ahead and update our article's text. -- 124.157.254.112 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Looks like some people's favourite propaganda outlet finally admits that sts-135 is no done deal: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22538.msg666326#new "So technically, this 133 slip isn't all that bad at all for 135. The battle which remains is to gain the required funding."

What distinguishes reputable news reports from questionable rags (to be found next to the counter of your favourite supermarket! "50lbs baby is born! Drinks milk by the quart!!") is that - while both publish wrong pieces of news - the reputable sources never publish such garbage deliberately; and when the error becomes known, the reputable sources hasten to publish a correction (with the same visibility than the original) with excuses, and learn their lesson for the future.

In the meantime SpaceX is on track for COTS-1 launch, while the STS program status is "hoping to be cleared for launch at some future date", and even if everything would go smoothly, that'd be after one of the longest pad stays in the history of the program. The current NET date for sts-133 is agreed to be optimistic by those who know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.7.168 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NASA has just confirmed that they are changing STS-335 to STS-135 and talks of a possibility of a mission changed to August —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.106.24.39 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

STS-135 has been just reassigned to July 8, 2011. Battle cruiser (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding images

I would like to express my view on adding images to this page. I observed that some editors add any "arbitrary" image to the page with out proper justification. My view is that such insertions degrade the quality of the page as an information source to other readers. Moreover adding a large number of insignificant images hinders the readability (images can be in different sections (due to HTML formatting) they are not meant to be). Most of such images can be found in large numbers. Example in NASA websites and also Wiki Media Commons. In order to improve the quality of the STS-135 page (and also other shuttle and space science related articles), I believe that editors can be very selective in inserting images. and only add images that are of significant meaning to the text and context in the page. I believe what we really require is (1) text with a wealth of information and (2) images to support/convey additional information. I do not imply that images are not valuable (I am very much in support of them) but do not favor adding unwanted/insignificant images in mass numbers. Since the fine line for this is at the discretion of an editor as well as relative, I am not sure how we can implement a standard practice. I also look forward to the view of other frequent editors regarding the issue 202.94.70.50 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think images such as crew welcome/farewell and special events such as spacewalks and the RPM should be included. If it is just one image then going beside the text of the section is fine, or if it is two and the section is long that is fine. Other wise I say a small section with two images, the images should go to a gallery. I myself rarely add images, unless I really think they are super important, or they convey an important point and help the reader who may not understand whats going on to understand.--NavyBlue84 02:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


rendezvous on FD4? No such thing

Atlantis is to rendezvous and dock with the ISS on Flight Day 4, as opposed to the usual Flight Day 3, as the small size of the crew is expected to create more demand on each individual crew-member.[47]

I don't know where this comes from, I only know it's ridicolously false. Without power transfer and with a packed mission timeline, how can anyone imagine a rendezvous on FD4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.153.24.96 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple. With a crew of just 4, it is foreseen that all pre-docking work (most importantly WLE RCC + TPS inspections) will take more time than usual. Actually, couple of years ago, when the idea of STS-135 first surfaced -- but for a smaller crew -- like 2 or 3 -- it was outright dismissed by the Shuttle specialist community due to inability to perform all the necessary tasks in the time required (even with SSPTS). But if there's will, there's a way! 94.248.101.17 (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Flight day 4 is a rendezvous option. It has been considered on many occasions, and I believe has happened once.However, right now nothing says FD4 is going to be docking day. The NASA mission summary and master flight plan all say flight day 3. It can be done on flight day 3 if the crew works harder at trying to get ahead and everything co-operates. Some of the stuff that occurs during previous missions (EMU check out and some other activities) are not going to be taking place on STS-135.--NavyBlue84 15:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Actually current mission timeline shows Day 3. 94.248.101.17 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

destroyed ref list

Broken ref's. Some lame editing seems to have detroyed all the reference lists and the templates. Should we rollback to a previous version before destruction of ref's, or someone will fix it in the current version? 82.207.116.98 (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fossum was on Canadarm2 while the RRM was being moved

I watched the Spacewalk live on the NASA feed and I was sure that Fossum had the suit with the red stripes, and that he had been on the Canadarm2 when the RRM was being moved. It is confirmed in this video on the NASA website: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=101097151

Garan was on the arm when they moved the failed Pump Module into the Shuttle, but he egressed the arm and Fossum ingressed the arm before they moved the RRM out of the Shuttle to the DEXTRE platform. If you look at the photograph in this article of the astronaut on Canadarm2 as the RRM is being moved to the Dextre platform, it is labelled as being Garan. I corrected this to say that it is Fossum, but somebody changed it back to Garan.

Even the image's filename says Garan, but I noticed there's a duplicate with a filename that says 'Fossum'. So, either the filename of the current image should be corrected, or the duplicate should be used instead. I'm not sure how to change it, and if I do it will probably just be changed again. So, can somebody please fix this and stop others from changing it back? Mykar (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

—complete items

Some items in the schedule are marked with "—complete" while others are not. Were the items not marked planned but not done? --Marc Kupper|talk 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Add ref

Could someone add this reference to the page for me, I keep getting hit with edit conflicts, and I can't fix it! Thanks :) title=Atlantis Completes Final Space Shuttle Program Landing at 5:57 a.m. EDT url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html accessdate=21 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.194.218 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:STS-135/Archive_1&oldid=1142444947"