Talk:STS-51-F

Untitled

REFERENCE FOR COCA-COLA EXPERIMENT:

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

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

Ascent notability

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

Targeted Proximity Operations

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on STS-51-F. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161221020839/http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/orbit.html to http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/orbit.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930025908/http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html to http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This was not on Challenger

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

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

Which orbit is correct (or are they both)

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

I've reviewed the Space Shuttle Mission Report for 51F and found some discrepancies in the orbit data as compared to other sources. Currently, the only accessible version of this report I could find is here, though I am searching for a more reliable host. The report states: "..burn placed the Shuttle in a 143.1 nautical miles (265.0 km; 164.7 mi) by 108.0 nautical miles (200.0 km; 124.3 mi) orbit with an inclination of 49.57 degrees ... three additional OMS burns were required to raise the orbit to 170.7 nautical miles (316.1 km; 196.4 mi) by 169.8 nautical miles (314.5 km; 195.4 mi)."

The press kit found here, cited in the article for the planned orbit, indicates a different final orbit than currently stated in the article: "Insert into 186 nautical miles (344 km; 214 mi) by 106 nautical miles (196 km; 122 mi) (direct insertion orbit, then maneuver to approximately 207 nautical miles (383 km; 238 mi) circular with 7 OMS maneuvers..." Weirdly off by only one mile in either direction, but this is the source it was supposedly quoted from.

Additionally, the more recently dated Space Shuttle Missions Summary presents another set of figures for the insertion orbit: 142.9 nautical miles (264.7 km; 164.4 mi) by 108.7 nautical miles (201.3 km; 125.1 mi) with an inclination of 49.491 degrees, and an orbit of 174 nautical miles (322 km; 200 mi) by 164 nautical miles (304 km; 189 mi) at the time of deorbit.

Given the discrepancies and my inability to personally verify the sources of the Missions Report (all the links are dead now), I propose we determine which source we find most credible and update the article accordingly. askeuhd (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)