How Did Astronauts Use Tautline Hitch To Repair Hubble Contacts

WikiProject Scouting

(Rated B-class, High-importance)

	Taut-line hitch is role of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not and then affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If yous would similar to participate, you can edit the article fastened to this page, or visit the project page, where you tin can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Scouting Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting Scouting articles
B	This commodity has been rated equally B-Course on the project'south quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as Loftier-importance on the projection'southward importance calibration.

WikiProject Knots

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Knots, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knots on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Knots Wikipedia:WikiProject Knots Knots articles

Requests [edit]

Tying description and illustration for #1799 [edit]

Now that in that location is a discussion of the different versions, the different tying methods should be illustrated -- Especially #1799 since that seems to be the most secure version of this knot. --Dfred 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Fleck the bullet today and created images for all three variations. Other major edits every bit well. --Dfred 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Hope you didn't chip a molar. Great job. Sfahey fourteen:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Heh heh, thank you. I've been doing related stuff on Rolling hitch as well. This piece of work has made clear to me that coming upwardly with reasonable guidelines to address the vagaries of knot naming (i.e. how to handle naming conflicts, consolidation, disambiguation, redirects, etc.) volition be an important step in making progress in getting the knotting topics into better shape overall. --Dfred 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Um, shouldn't the foto of the finished taut-line hitch exist, uh, taut? I hateful, like, isn't that kind of the betoken? ;>)} jaknouse 17:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]

I have to concur at that place... :) --Dfred 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Most pictures I've seen of this knot show the final one-half-hitch tossed in reverse of the way the photo demonstrates, in this instance existence thrown "over and under" instead of the "nether and over" shown. Either mode, it tightens pretty well, but I wonder which version holds meliorate. Sfahey 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, the existent taut-line hitch is not what's shown in the photos. The final half hitch is backwards. Rracecarr 22:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC) [respond]

Hmmm, I believe the main effect hither is i of nomenclature, which is a large problem in general for knotting... The actual question is whether the "taut-line hitch" is a clarification of a class of knots where a friction hitch is tied effectually the standing role of the rope in order to produce a tensionable setup or whether information technology merely describes one detail method of accomplishing that. Specifically 2 like hitches are oft tied effectually the continuing part of a rope resulting functionally in a "taut-line hitch", they are: the Rolling Hitch (Ashley #1734) and the Magnus Hitch (#1736). Information technology is possible that Scouting or some other organization considers the Rolling Hitch version "correct", but they are both equivalently secure if worked upwardly properly. (And, in fact, at that place are other friction hitches that would requite even more security.) Personally I'chiliad in understanding with Ashley that the Magnus Hitch version (pictured) lays better and has somewhat less propensity to roll. Notwithstanding I believe that both forms are valid and should be discussed by the article. Actually it would be nice to have a photo of both versions, preferably in the same image, for comparison purposes. I'll expect a little while for comment on this earlier proceeding with editing in this direction. --Dfred 21:38, vi September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Huh? Are y'all saying that the Magnus hitch (illustrated on http://www.cruising.sailingcourse.com/advanced_knots.htm just under a motion picture of what I think is the "correct" taut-line hitch) turns into an effective adjustable knot that can be called a "taut-line hitch" if they're tied around the continuing line? They look style different to me. Sfahey 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Well, that page discusses some of the difficulties with terminology surrounding these closely related knots. Just it nevertheless falls prey to the attraction of trying to apply names to unambiguously describe knots. The main problem is that the term Magnus Hitch has historically been used for both #1734 and #1736, this is discussed in Ashley's description of #1736. Regarding the two knots in the lower flick[one], the summit ane is #1735, which is very similar to #1734 (the lower knot) only rearranges the initial wraps. This rearrangement is sometimes referred to as a making a "constrict" when forming #1734, for instance at [ii]. (Note the specific reference to #1735 there.)

Ashley refers to what we are calling the Taut-line hitch as the "Adaptable Hitch" (#1800) and illustrates it in the manner of [3], which you referred to as "correct". However in the description for #1800 he states (and the caps are original, not intended equally shouting): "The ADJUSTABLE HITCH is based on the MAGNUS or ROLLING HITCH and is closely related to the MIDSHIPMANS'S KNOT, the difference being in the organization of the second turn. If the final hitch is reversed there will be less tendency to twist. Slide the knot either mode and it should remain without rendering." The comment about the "last hitch" is germane to the discussion hither and appears to indicate that the adaptable hitch/taut-line hitch may exist tied either manner and nonetheless be considered functionally the aforementioned knot.

There is no question addressing which knot is which is a difficult subject area sometimes, and it's piece of cake to make mistakes. I've not had nearly enough tea this morn, so please check my comments for accuracy. :-). Dfred 13:twenty, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

I should have as well noted that Ashley #1799 illustrates a knot which uses #1735 to course an adjustable knot (every bit suggested in the animatedknots.com commendation above.) All iii (four?) versions of these very similar "adjustable hitches" are probably worth discussing in the same wikipedia article with an explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of each.--Dfred fifteen:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Then I went for information technology... I added a Variations section with accompanying illustration. Hopefully it's suitable.--Dfred 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [respond]

The variations section is a plus; only to get the next grade (B-class): the lead should summarize the commodity and there should be references. Too, there commodity seems to waffle between is this a specific knot or a grade of knots? With many variations (I personally never saw it tied to mail service earlier merely rather effectually the standing role of the rope), the article should probably cover it equally a class with variations. A photo of the knot with all three half hitches the same way would be good too (which is likewise how BSA whatever others utilise it). Get out response here, I've gear up a watch. Rlevse 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I wasn't necessarily expecting an upgrade in the quality scale, but information technology is helpful to receive feedback from someone more familiar with scouting whether this seemed like a reasonable direction to get for this page. I'll see what I can exercise about the waffling. :) If you or someone else sure of BSA's specific method of tying wants to note which 1 it is at the end of the Variations section, that would be great. I've already put a asking up elevation hither about adding tying instruction text and photos for the purportedly near secure version, #1799, with the "constrict" and final half-hitch in the same management. Cheers. --Dfred twenty:34, x September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The place you left a request for reassessment is for asking for a alter in the quality/course rating. The photo here: http://www.animatedknots.com/rollinghitchboating/ with the white rope of the right side of the page is how BSA teaches how to tie information technology. Rlevse 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [answer]

Understood, sorry nigh that. Cheers for the info. --Dfred 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Very overnice, B-class at present. Rlevse 09:27, vi October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I feel somewhat stupid, tin someone please explain the purpose of the tautline hitch in a simpler style?--Montaced (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC) [respond]

I like ot for 2 reasons: ane. Information technology is perfect for tent lines, where yous pull the center of the shorter length a bit to tighten information technology, then slide the knot down to "lock" the line at the new, shorter, tighter length; 2. Trying to tie it every couple of months tests my memory! All the knots I learned 30 years agone I tin can do blindfolded, but these newer ones need ffrequent updating. Sfahey (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

A user at 130.76.32.145 removed the referenced claim that this knot was used on STS-82 to service the HST. This edit appeared to exist made in practiced faith. The referenced commodity quotes a ground engineer saying he instructed the astronauts to use the "tent-line hitch" in parachute cord equally function of an improvised repair to the telescope'due south outer insulation blanket. I acknowledge this isn't the strongest reference as, technically, information technology is hearsay since the engineer may never have verified that the astronauts actually used the knot he recommended. However, given the style NASA scripts things like this it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they followed the instructions carefully. If this is the objection, and others think it'southward significant, then I propose adding something along the lines of "...is said to take been used...".

And of course removal isn't out of the question, just I do retrieve it provides a nice physical case of the relevance of knots in the modern earth. Thoughts? --Dfred (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) [answer]

I thought the anecdote was charming. Likewise often these sorts of comments in Wikipedia get edited abroad. Would be nice if someone could track down the astronaut. He would likely recall the circumstances exactly. Kd4ttc (talk)

Both the infobox and the "Security" department make reference to #1799; however, the knot numbers illustrated in the article are marked as 1734, 1735, 1736, 1800, 1855, 1856 (illustration implies that it's the same as 1800), and 1857. Also, the "Security" section mentions two versions of 1800, ane of which has a reversed last hitch - is this alternate version 1857? Someone familiar with the topic should probably clarify these points. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC) [answer]

Cheers for noticing that. Originally I had used #1799/#1800/#1800-reversed for the three variations, subsequently I constitute in another ABOK chapter the three knots were covered by three sequential numbers and switched to that numbering. I manifestly missed those former numbers in the security section. Fixed. --Dfred (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, that makes much more sense at present! cmadler (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC) [answer]

I've seen wikipedia entries that are how-to manufactures get edited out because Wikipedia isn't supposed to exist how-to. I've long felt that was too doctrinaire. Knots are a nice place to include step past step instructions. Information technology'due south so nice to testify people how to make the knots, possibly assuasive individual to make the knot and work it while reading about the knot. I hope the excellent illustrative photographs or drawings are kept. Kd4ttc (talk) fifteen:nineteen, 12 September 2022 (UTC) [answer]

          Kinda a newbie question i gauge Thetreespyder (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)            [reply]

Howdy Thetreespyder, I took a expect at your now reverted addition. The main trouble was that it included unattributed opinion, presumably yours. Wikipedia has no opinions about anything. We simply report opinions that recognized commentators have published elsewhere. "Joe Blow wrote that the reef knot is suitable for tying parcels.(reference: Joe Accident'south Big Knot Book, 2006, The Publishing Co. London. page 146)" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

i'thou very sad merely the 1st paragraph of that is full of quotes with quotation marks ABoK#'s and a citing to ABoK properly in credits. i have been reading and researching that volume on/off for 40yrs. Was working on rest of credits and wiped out during the commencement x minutes of writing? While in procedure delight? Then would seem the copy/pasted quotations themselves where disputed?Thetreespyder (talk) xi:29, eighteen May 2022 (UTC) [answer]