From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Maneuver => manoeuvre, no?[edit]

To me the former is the American spelling, highly unsuitable for this article; maybe I'm old-fashioned but "manoeuvre" is what I've changed it to; maybe there's a more modern Canadian spelling "maneuvre", but that would look wrong to me.Skookum1 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was mostly written by Americans. Sometimes articles use unusual regional English variations, for example the ISS page is written in British English despite Britain being significantly less involved in the program than Americans and Canadians. --Craigboy (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it should be manoeuvre; I'll add the Canadian English template to this page. I found {{British English}} on Talk:Indo-Canadians, and the category for articles worldwide that use British English, even though e.g. Korea, the Philippines and other countries use American spelling; also on Belize and Jamaica and so on, though I'm not sure what the official forms of English there are. But it seems British Wikipedians think their Empire still exists; I've often corrected Canadian history and bio articles to Canadian spelling from British, even when {{Canadian English}} is already there. They also imposed the "power station" British-ism to Canadian and US categories rather high-handedly, even dismissing the one Canadian input (me) with a sort of "Mother Country Knows Best" attitude, with claims in the CfD about the term being common in the US being demonstrable wrong. But logic and consistency are not often followed, nor common sense. I can understand with European English articles that British spelling should be used; but imposing it on countries that do not use it is.......imperialist.Skookum1 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, {{Canadian English}} was already here...... it's not just British who dismiss Canadian English, happens all the time in various ways with American edits too.Skookum1 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How much electrical power could it draw[edit]

What voltages and currents might it need to operate ? STS - PAYLOAD DEPLOYMENT AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM says it uses the main 28 V DC bus and one of the AC buses (115 V 400 Hz) AC1 or AC2. Up to 520 W (28 V DC) for heaters, but how much for lights, cameras and motors ? Orbiter could supply 12 kW peak. - Rod57 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provision for jettisoning the arm if it could not be restowed[edit]

"If the manipulator arm cannot be restowed for any reason, it will be jettisoned so the payload bay doors can be closed. There are four separation points: one at the shoulder and one at each of the three retention latches. Each separation point is individually released." STS - PAYLOAD DEPLOYMENT AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM Pyro devices would guillotine cable bundles and presumably the arms or joints as well. Would be nice to find/use a published doc as ref. - Rod57 (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British vs. American vs. Canadian English[edit]

The article use {{Use British English}}, the talk page use {{Canadian English}}, and the subject has national WP:TIES to the US, where American English is de facto national. Should this article use British or American or Canadian English? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The one thing that I think most can agree on, I'd think, is that it shouldn't be in British English. I'd assume that Canadian English would make the most sense. The references are mostly Canadian. It's got a Canadian flag on it. It's got Canada in the name. The arm itself is pictured in all sorts of Canadian iconography like stamps and on the $5 bill. (UTC) File:Canadian $5 note specimen - back.jpg Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2020
  • On giving it some more thought, I think it should be in Canadian English instead of American English. I can see the merits of both, but it is a purely-Canadian technology that was used by the US. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current consensus is against the British English in favour of Canadian English. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]