Talk:Shuttle Training Aircraft

message: OK, 
Switching to English now.  I was disappointed on how the article was written.  I worked for NASA from 1992-1996, and I know a little more than the writer (whoever that was).  I take it someone from the inside contributed this info.  Well, if that is the case, then the article needs to be written from an OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE not SUBJECTIVE.  For example, it was written in a manner with the assumption someone out in the rice fields of China (yes, exaggerated) knows what a heading alignment cone is.  Also ripped out all instances of 'astronaut'.  What's that doing in there???  Astronaut has multiple meanings, Mission Specialist, Medical Specialist, etc.  The terms must be PILOT and/or COMMANDER.
I tweaked the grammar throughout and combined redundancies.  I also itemized the actions the pilot performs for ease of reading.
Reworded the photo caption. It was 'pa-the-tic'.  It needed more beef.  The idea is to inform the reader, 'Oh, so they are descending downward.'  Not just 'Shuttle Training Aircraft in flight. :LAMO:  Who in the h*ll will understand that??  I want the article to BE MORE SPECIFIC.   The intent of the writer is to inform a bunch of cattle (sorry, again, exaggerated).
Another thing.  Let's say a kid of the Dene Nation in Lutslk'e, Northwest Territories, Canada has a computer and they have internet.  He reads, 'The STAs are located at blah blah blah.  But there is NO MENTION OF WHERE.  So, I added for the sake of sanity, Houston, Texas, USA.
The only reason why I'm being very nit-picky, and apologies for being harsh, is because I was their employee for 4 years, then switched jobs.  As a former employee, I was disappointed.  I expected better, and NO I AM NOT PERFECT, but at least have the courtesy to be more informative.  btw, this article is not complete.  I need to add hyperlinks to the ref's.
Welcome home, my Son 07:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shuttle Training Aircraft could have been better written.  :( 

message: Isn't it "Heading Alignment Cylinder", not "Heading Alignment Circle"?
Scott Johnson 13:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HAC 

message: While I find the STA article essentially accurate, I would like to see additional details of the avionics system and its supplier, Sperry Flight Systems, Phoenix, AZ, now owned by Honeywell.
I was an engineer with Sperry Flight Systems during construction and flight testing of the first STA.  I participated in the development of the ground-based validation suite where all airborne components of the avionics system were integrated and tested prior to installation aboard the STA.  I also wrote code for the onboard computer control of the approach and landing.  This flight segment was referred to as Terminal Area Energy Management or TAEM.  The Wikipedia article gives some detail of this.  More specifically, the onboard computer provided a measurement of the potential and kinetic energy of the aircraft and compared this to what would be required to reach the runway with just the right amount of energy remaining for a successful landing.  The preferred scenario of course was excess energy at altitude so you could do graceful banking curves to bleed off energy. These maneuvers could be performed in autopilot mode, but more often, the astronaut pilot would take control and fly the aircraft in accordance with steering commands presented on the various cockpit situation indicators. 
I arrived at Grumman in Bethpage, NY shortly after the airframe had been delivered "in the green" and participated in installation of Sperry's onboard, model-following computer that sensed cockpit controls and interpreted them into commands to the various airframe control sturctures.  In particular, I do not see any mention of the side force controllers that were mounted beneath the fuselage, much like centerboards on a sailboat.  These control surfaces worked with the direct lift controllers and thrust reversers to provide simulation of variable winds and lift.  I have not found recent photos of an STA with the side force controllers so perhaps they have been eliminated since I left the program in 1977.  For simulated landings, as indicated in the article, the aircraft would remain well above the physical runway and the side force controllers posed no particular threat, but in an actual landing, they were percariously close to the ground and would pretty much prevent a "wheels-up" landing in an emergency.
Once the airframe and avionics modification were completed, the aircraft was flown to Grumman's Peconic Test Flight Facility on Long Island.  I participated in flight test support from that location on the early test flights and was present when the first fully automatic landing simulation was performed.  At that time, the aircraft shook violently when the thrust reversers were deployed and they were subsequently modifed for less than 100% reverse thrust.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xstaengineer (talk • contribs) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  STA Avionics Vendor 

message: I've attempted to organize the information that was there into sections in response to the tag. In addition I've added the standard infobox for aircraft and 2 references. The reference which was there is a dead link so I've removed it and replaced the citation in the article with a NASA reference. If I screwed anything up, leave me a note here. Nigelbeameniii (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: I don't imagine that the STA is still necessary, since the STS has been retired. I would be making stuff up, though, if I edited the article. Brianetta Brian Ronald, UK.  Talk here 08:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still operational?