Talk:Canadarm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadarm is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, an attempt to standardise coverage of Robotics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

There is no reason for this to be under "Canadarm". This is a nickname, not an official name. Just as we don't use acronyms (articles are under their full name), we shouldn't use nicknames either. Therefore, I'm moving this article to Remote Manipulator System Lostchicken 02:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The names "Canadarm" (shuttle) and "Canadarm2" (station) are used by NASA[1].
  • While it's true the official name by the maker is "Shuttle Remote Manipulator System", it's normal in wiki to use the commonly understood term.
  • The purpose of wiki is to be *helpful* to people looking up information. It's not designed to help people who seem to already know everything already. --rob 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Articles should be referenced by the official name. Canadarm redirects to Remote Manipulator System, so it is no harder to find than it was when the article resided under that name. Canadarm2 properly redirects to Mobile Servicing System, so it is consistent as well. My main gripe about moving articles is that the history is lost. There should be a formal "rename" command to change the name of an article while preserving the history. This article was moved months ago, so it isn't even an issue at this time. --Dan East 01:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it that whenever Americans feel their pride is being stepped on, they must intervene going beyond convention? Same thing with Aluminium/Aluminum. Aluminium is correct, yet the Americans feel that they should have their way, titling the article Aluminum. Some random idiot mentions that, as Aluminum is more used than Aluminium, not using the American spelling would not be NPOV. Now c'mon you people! Make up your minds!--AtomicCactus 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You forgot about categories. Everybody who knows what a RMS is, also knows what the Canadarm is, but not vice-versa. But, I'm personally leaving it, since it's not a big enough issue to warrant the major step of a move (or worse a counter move).
    • I don't get your comments about when "history is lost". The history of articles, is (normally) maintained, even through multiple moves. A number of articles show long history, including notes on the moves. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to. --rob 02:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Title confusion

  • Shouldn't this whole article go under SRMS??? There is no such thing as RMS!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.115.174 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Needs update

  • Most of the information in this article seems to come from a NASA reference manual from 1988, and reads like one. The CSA website says there were in fact 5 Canadarms built, and 4 are still in use, since one was lost in challenger.. but the page hadn't been updated since 2001, i.e. before the columbia explosion. I haven't been able to find how many Canadarms there actually are, and how they differ. Presumably one or more were lost on Columbia, but i haven't even been able to find that. Mlm42 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

who cares what category it is in, the one guy is right, i looked up canadarm and it redirected me to the article called RMS. But sill I think it should be Canadarm, because it was the canadians that developed it and it is a more widely used name than Remote Manipulator system. --69.11.81.236 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I've noticed that this page has been recently vandalised (within the past hour, I noticed that the weights were wrong) so I will make a few corrections to it... there are a few more corrections needed as well.

also, only three SRMS are still in operation. YikHei 00:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Why is the Space Transportation System (STS) under the title Space Shuttle, while the Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (SRMS) is not under the title Canadarm? There should be some consistency in naming conventions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.44.35 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Moved

Well the abbreviation definitely needed to go, so much was clear. I also decided that since canadaspace refers to it as canadarm, and NASA also uses canadarm in non-technical documents, as well as the fact that we use the "easy" names for all ISS components and the shuttle, instead of their technical names, it would be best to have this under Canadarm with the rest redirecting here. What also convinced me here, is that we should always have titles and leads of articles as understandable as possible for those who do not yet understand the topic. It was about time this got cleaned up, and some will surely disagree, but he, we can't make everyone happy. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] which arm was lost on columbia (if any)?

The article states which arm was lost on challenger.. which was lost on columbia (if any)? ps thanks for moving the article to Canadarm! 143.117.23.141 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote the page "There were five arms built and delivered to KSC. Arm 201, 202, 301, 302, and 303. Arm 302 was lost in the Challenger accident." That is as much as I have been able to find on it. and np. on the pagemove. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Columbia didn't fly with an arm. There seems to be some confusion about the amount of arms that are/were in existence and what happened to all of them as you can read from this discussion http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/printer-friendly.asp?tid=1826&mid= --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what changed

link has some info on how the arm was "upgraded" throughout it's lifetime for several times. kinda interesting and we might wanna incorporate some of that into the article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First fitted

The article states that the arm was first used on STS-2. Was it not present during STS-1, or was it present but not used? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

STS-1 did not have an RMS arm.Andy120290 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering- Who really designed the Canadarm

The Canadarm was not (or at least not entirely) designed by SPAR it was Engineered by a small company called DSMA. SPAR has been taking the credit for years.

Due credit would be greatly appreciated.