This is an archive of past discussions about International Space Station. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please feel free to just edit those redlinks in the above diagram if you can get your head around the format, it's quite a puzzle, or comment as you will everyone.
It's stolen from the FA Russian ISS article, it's a brilliant idea that gives a good layout of the station and gives clickable links as well... cool I thought. It uses wikipedia's standard family tree table program in an innovative way that suits our purpose really well. Like / hate / comments ? just edit it if you can ! Penyulap talk14:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
NO WAY!!! Nobody can work that fast ! thats impossible ! it took me weeks to get the few I did fixed. Do you do Russian family trees all day long or what ? omg. Penyulap talk15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm still looking at it and still can't believe it. I think I'll just try to find a place in the article for it, and then stare some more at it for a few hours, till I finally get it that some people excel at impossible tasks I can't manage(seriously, check my sandbox history, it's been there ages with me chipping now and then like it's a stone tablet. Penyulap talk16:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Case closed, I wasn't going to wait for consensus. That was a force of nature not to be reckoned with. It's done. All that's left now is to deal with everyone's shell-shocked looks. lolz. Penyulap talk16:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
the colour is daring, it should give people heart attacks :) no doubt someone will complain, but they will need to bring a friend, because I support it 100 %, and will need a damn good reason to do otherwise. Brilliant. Penyulap talk01:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The idea is that Blue are pressurised modules, green are berthing ports, red is the truss and yellow are unpressurised elements. Now I just need to figure out how to make a key... Probubly it will have to be external to the tree.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar01:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added two sentences "The blue areas are pressurized sections accessible by the crew without using spacesuits. The unity node joins directly to the destiny laboratory, for clarity, they are shown apart. The stations unpressurized superstructure is indicated in red." to keep it short and simple, though, it may be better (and more stable) if it's in the table itself, I'll add a suggestion to the table above. (ok one little box just too me like 10 previews and 5 minutes, I'll leave it to the expert ! I know when I'm beaten) Penyulap talk05:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The docking ports could have a more prominent outline, but with the same blue interior indicating pressurized sections, the HTV berth was shared by the Italian cargo modules. I'd suggest keeping it simple, the legend might have pressurized sections, docking ports(we can just include the HTV berth as a docking port in the colour scheme) and unpressurized (super)structure (truss would reiterate what is in the table already), beyond that, people will 'get it', so we can keep it clean and simple. thoughts ? Penyulap talk05:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The HTV box could be made into a similar color to the Russian docking ports, and name change to HTV/MLPM docking port. I don't dare do it myself, I opened up the edit for it, and looked at it for a bit, and thought, hmm, maybe a bad idea right here. No my strong suit. If anyone can help with this, please do, as U5K0 is away at the moment. Penyulap talk04:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Media section
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Sure, some of it is NOT up to scratch, but some of it certainly is. I'm not letting the baby get thrown out with the bathwater, please feel free to do it correctly by cutting out the crap like games and so forth, or just don't bother. First Orbit is going back in unless you want to find a better article to include Nespoli's film-making in. Actually, there are a few, but man, this is so totally one of them. I support case by case, but deleting the international space station article, or one of it's imperfect sections, forget that. bring a friend. (I do agree there is crap in there, and I'm responsible for a lot of it, but the good stuff, it's seriously good stuff.) Penyulap talk02:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No no no! The article is supposed to be about the spacecraft and its operations, we've consistently resisted putting in a section about every little appearance it has in media because it's unnecessary and irrelevant - the article's huge enough as it is, and this section is not necessary. Please remove it, or failing that, the unreferenced bits (which are most of it). Colds7ream (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this section, as it exists, is not ready for primetime. If there isn't some defence of it based on the criteria pasted above I will be moving it to the talk page.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar16:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
1st and 2nd paragraph would make it on all 3 points, just have a read of it.
Also, first orbit may well be considered for the education and cultural outreach section, it does help illistrate that part of the purpose of the ISS itself, with the added advantage of having no media section as well. Though to understand my point there, you'd need to read up a little about first orbit. So I guess it would need a re-write for inclusion in that section, so that it explains itself. Penyulap talk01:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
added photo structure
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In addition to the excellent diagram of the station's structure, I took the liberty of adding a more graphic view of the station in a right insert, as discussed here some time ago. I have decided to be WP:BOLD, I hope that is proper. -- TheAnarcat (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It's cool, I will be happy to help when I get the chance, but certainly you are doing what is proper. Sorry I haven't had enough time to help by rescaling the image. this (pictured) is an example of a photographic image that has text and links added to it, but the text and links can be changed easily into other languages. here are the docs. This would actually end up being better, because the article is translated into 77 languages, and some of them may adopt the image. Penyulap talk06:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In media
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Motion pictures
The free movie First Orbit, documents what the first human being to travel into space would have seen, that is, 'more than most people do in a lifetime'[1]. By timing filming, to match the orbital path of the Space Station as closely as possible, to that of Gagarin's Vostok 1 spaceship, and filming the same vistas of the Earth through the cupola window, experienced photographer Paolo Nespoli, and documentary film maker Christopher Riley, recreate what Gagarin first witnessed fifty years before. Christopher Riley states "Composer Philip Sheppard sets the different moods for the film, from the launch and flight over frozen Siberia, to the approach of the terminator and dusk, through the long dark night over the Pacific Ocean, to dawn breaking and the welcome return of the sun just south of Argentina."[2][3]
This can go pretty much as-is into education and cultural outreach, with small changes about the crew filming an educational/cultural documentary and so forth.Penyulap talk05:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Anousheh Ansari (Persian: انوشه انصاری) became the first Iranian in space and the first self-funded woman to fly to the station. Officials reported that her education and experience make her much more than a tourist, and her performance in training had been "excellent."[4] Ansari herself dismisses the idea that she is a tourist. She did Russian and European studies involving medicine and microbiology during her 10 day stay. The documentary Space Tourists follows her journey to the station, where she fulfilled the childhood dream 'to leave our planet as a normal person and travel into outer space.'[5] In the film, some Kazakhs are shown waiting in the middle of the steppes for four rocket stages to literally fall from the sky. Film-maker Christian Frei states "Filming the work of the Kazakh scrap metal collectors was anything but easy. The Russian authorities finally gave us a film permit in principle, but they imposed crippling preconditions on our activities. The real daily routine of the scrap metal collectors could definitely not be shown. Secret service agents and military personnel dressed in overalls and helmets were willing to re-enact their work for the cameras – in an idealized way that officials in Moscow deemed to be presentable, but not at all how it takes place in reality."
Still notable, but would need a complete re-write, probably something covering all tourists to the ISS to complement the professionals which are covered in the section "expeditions", the article doesn't explain to editors let alone readers how the additional crew will be accommodated on the three seater soyuz's, so it needs something there. ....and dump everything from here down. So no media section, cool! Penyulap talk05:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The 2002 remake of the motion picture Solaris is set on the fictional space station Prometheus. The internal and external forms for Prometheus were based upon the International Space Station. The films director and production designer wanted to illicit a sense of realism and give the station a more hi-tech steel and composites look than the 1972 original film, based upon the novel by Stanisław Lem. Prometheus has the same claustrophobic, space-conserving interior as the ISS. Hanson, Matt. Building sci-fi moviescapes: the science behind the fiction. pp. 97–98. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
The ISS is seen in the movie The Time Machine as the Earth is rapidly spinning through time during the first time travel sequence of the film.
In the year 2039, Astronaut Lee Miller is sent to the International Space Station as a one-man skeleton crew to examine if it is safe for use after it had been abandoned two decades earlier. Love portrays the personal-psychological effects of isolation and loneliness when an astronaut becomes stranded in space and through this, emphasizes the importance of human connection and love. Additionally, it touches on the fragility of mankind's existence (explored through a dying Earth-apocalyptic doomsday scenario) inspired by the cautions of Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot and considers the importance of memories and stories as humanity's legacy.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2011)
The ISS is destroyed accidentally by a submarine launched ICBM aimed at Washington D.C. in the videogame Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.
Print
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2011)
In Gravity, a novel by Tess Gerritsen, cells in an experiment on board the ISS rapidly multiply and soon begin to infect the crew-with agonizing and deadly results. The novel has been compared to The Andromeda Strain. [6]
Every creature on Earth with a Y chromosome is killed by a deadly virus in Y: The Last Man, except two male ISS crewmembers, who die accidentally returning to Earth in their Soyuz, but the third crew member, a woman, is pregnant.
Baikonour is a love story with a twist, featuring a French cosmonaut who blasts off from the cosmodrome as a space tourist only to crash land upon re-entry. "The capsule lands in the Kazakh steppe and is found by this young boy because the rescue team is late,” Director Viet Helmer told RT. “The young boy takes the girl to his yurt because she is in a coma. He tries to wake her and when she wakes up, he tells her she’s his wife because she can’t remember anything.”
Has anyone bothered to read the section ?
Am I the only one who reads the article ? I don't think so, plenty do, but I'd ask the people who are trying to cut out the whole media section to at least read the blasted thing first. Colds7ream mentioned wp:trivia before, so yes I've read it, at that time, and many times since, so you don't need to spell it out to me, please DO read the media section, rather than cut and paste it. READ is better than PASTE, as you can answer the questions yourself. I agree with colds7ream to a point, that a lot of it IS trivia. But read it. then you answer yourseld for first orbit, omg, and for the iranian womans movie. and probably the third — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.178.138 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, the above and this comment is penyulap from a semipublic connection. First orbit effected the work schedules of the crew, Nespoli was the cameraman for the footage, the more you read into it, the more notable you'll reaize it is, so when you are asking if there was a real-world effect, well, obviously there was. However, the books and video game section material, so far, fail notability. first and second paragraph of motion pictures makes it for notability, the rest either may, or do, fail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.178.138 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I have read the section. I maintain that it isn't ready to go into the article as is. The 1st and 2nd paragraphs are more apropriately placed in the education and outreach section. What remains is trivia and shouldn't be there in any form.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar09:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, except for the loving it part, apparently the pop culture idea causes friction across the whole of wikipedia, Colds7ream is right to kill it to stop trouble, but things like 1st orbit aren't meant to be deleted, it's TOO relevant, in very many ways. The rest is just fishing for assistance really, seeing if other editors will think "OH!! I know of...." and pop it in there so we can find it and assess it all. there are so many things missing in so many places. There is no science section or adequate coverage of it for example. Penyulap talk00:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There's eight pairs which operate together, each relying on a single rotary joint and wiring supply. Each pair was deployed together and is a single ORU. Colds7ream (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Then, back in the rest of the world, we have the Russian orbital segment, which has solar panels on Zarya, which spent two years in orbit powering it's systems that way, and providing power to the american section of the station (the passive node) then they were supplemented by the panels on the russian service module, which are folded in the picture, but how about we just ignore anything that's russian ! I vote for that ! and don't forget to ignore the new panels on the 3 modules that arrive over the next few years to, hell, lets ignore those modules too, I think that is where we were up to. Penyulap talk07:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue here was the text in the picture caption. The picture depicts the main solar arrays, which do provide most of the power to the ISS, russian segment included. I have no problem including a mention of the Zvezda array and their contribution to the text of the section and/or the Zarya arrays (although IMO that would better fit in the assembly section since they are now decomissioned). Regarding future power hardware on the proposed russian science modules - I think we should hold off on that since there is no hardware in existance yet and things could easily change before there is. Also what's with the sarcasm? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar12:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you hit the nail on the head, the caption IS the problem, it's misleading. Better is '1 of 8 on the USOS', or one of (total number), or just simplify, 'One of the solar panels.' 'one of the stations solar panels.' Do you have a reference for decommissioning ? Yes, the USOS has a chronic oversupply of power and a chronic undersupply of uses for it, as they're so not into science. Also, why have the illistrations of each module been cut out for the tour of the station ? what does it have to do with the Zarya paragraph ? -penyulap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.178.138 (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Other issues aside, the fact remains that the truss mounted solar arrays are the main power generators and providers for ISS as a whole. I misspoke(?) when i said decommission - on fact the arrays on Zarya have been retracted to make room for the cooling radiators. Also, Zarya is owned by NASA (so USOS?). I think saying one of 8 USOS.... would be less than optimal since the ROS derives a great deal of its power from them eventhough they are owned by NASA. I wou suggest we say: one of the 8 truss mounted... which provide the majority of... Sound good? BTW, thanks fo pointing this out.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar09:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Owned by nasa, yes i think so, usos definently not at all. At the moment the ROS doesn't need so much power as there is not as much science in progress as planned. the mlm hasn't gone up yet for example. so they haven't needed so much power, but they have been getting SOME power from the 8 panels, which is fine by them, so long as the power remains cheap and reliable, reliability is an issue for them, as the panels are somewhat prone to mischeif and may not last all the way to the end. the cheap power is what delayed, (and then cancelled, though it's not the right word) the original science power platforms. However, when the opsek modules are up there power needs are not a bother, as opsek has its own science power modules. It's one of 8 USOS, or one of the stations, 'main' is something of a wp:weaselword really, as the ROS WAS the ISS at the start. Penyulap talk00:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
One of the eight truss mounted pairs of solar arrays which currently provide the majority of power for the ISS.I think we're close to an agreement here. I'm confused as to why you pring up the OPSEK modules. The thing is they have not been built, launched or integratedinto ISS. Even the proposal currently on the table is for them to be part of a new space station. As things stand right now, the objective truth is that most of the power generated and consumed on ISS comes from the truss mounted arrays. This is my proposal:
Looks better. I'm aware of the current usage, and the problems (not in the repairs section) they have with the joints, and potential spare parts now the shuttle has retired. Just looking for accuracy. It's not perfect but it's definently better than before. Penyulap talk20:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I noticed this statement in the article: However, as of December 2010 China remains uninvolved,[226][227] since USA blocked China's entry to join the ISS program.[228]
I don't know what the 228 source says since I don't have access but I have a problem with tha language because of this video in which the NASA administrator cites an agreement of the ISS partners that the core partnership not be expanded because of treaty technicalities and encourages bilateral cooperation with third parties. Anyone have access to the nature article or some other information that I don't have?--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar12:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't have my refs with me, from top of my head, india, china, sth korea, and was it brazil? are countries that Russia and ESA would love to see join up, but all 5 partners must agree and allow it which is another way of saying that the US doesn't like the idea. The reports I have seen for the US gov state that some of the advantages of allowing china to participate is to keep an eye on what china is up to, and to try to make them more dependent on US tech. that's what i read anyhow. ESA is the most open for expansion, their CEO states as much, that would be easy to find. -penyulap
Quote "In an interview, ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain also said his agency was ready to propose to NASA and the other space station partners — Russia, Japan and Canada — that China, India and South Korea be invited to join the station partnership.
“These three nations have been active in the multilateral discussion of future space exploration architecture,” Dordain said. “It seems that these three would be a good place to start widening the partnership. But this needs to be a collective decision by all the current partners.”unquote Penyulap talk06:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of ESAs cooperation policy (very proud of it too). My problem here is that I have no access to source which would confirm that the US blocked China. It's probable given the politics but I'm not comfortable having this statement unreferenced.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar09:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You might approach the wording from the other way around, 'all 5 partners need to agree before an invitation can be offered' there are lots of refs for that, and then pop in each partners comments. However if you can't find a ref, or an archive, and it worries you chop it out. it is correct to do so. otherwise it just gets too stale to read. eventually the newer referenced positions become incresingly relevant to the project and push a lot of the history aside. most everything from an article that was proper in 2000 would be cut out by now, by more current info. Penyulap talk00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This is one I've not heard a satisfactory answer to since '98 when she went up. I've read Russia claims development, rightfully based on DOS/Mir. Clearly NASA/US paid for the module's construction. I've read NASA owns the module, but it's considered part of the ROS and not USOS. This is where I see it becoming prickly. Is it a Russian module financed by the US as a sweetener to bring them on board a post cold war project or an American module built and managed/operated by Russia on US behalf? The question is who actually owns, manages, and has sovereignty over the first ISS module? Or even weirder could it be US sovereign but operated by Russia?(!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
'I've read Russia claims development, rightfully based on DOS/Mir.' True, full Russian design.
'Clearly NASA/US paid for the module's construction.' True, the Russians were strapped for cash, some of those funds were used to make a backup module as well as the FGB, that backup has been converted for other uses over time.
'I've read NASA owns the module, but it's considered part of the ROS and not USOS.' True. afaik
'Is it a Russian module financed by the US as a sweetener to bring them on board a post cold war project' ? True. also benefits all other partners as they had no means to finance development of any space station project past drawings and mockups, basically they didn't have the know-how to make a station like the ISS work (life support, re-supply), or money for development.
'or an American module built and managed/operated by Russia on US behalf'? Many USOS modules fit that category, built by Europeans, management handed back and forth. The FGB is fully Russian Built and managed pretty much to their own(russian) ends, though it's used mainly for storage, dry cargo inside, propellants in tanks.
Look for a hand-over of ownership as a trade for more Soyuz / Progress flights, you may find the answer there, or more discussion of it anyhow. The above answers are just off the top of my head. Happy to go digging if you like. Penyulap talk05:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I concur and accept everything you stated. That follows everything I've found. Now despite being considered part of USOS the European and Japanese modules have their own ground control centers. It seems they are lumped into USOS legal ground work from the Freedom station I'd guess solely based on the differences in the utilization agreements among the agencies as opposed to the Russians. It still leaves the question of sovereignty. I hate to reference it, but I think of the film 2010 and it's fictitious political impact on an international mission. I'm sure this is covered somewhere in 'space law' or the inter space agencies agreement for ISS but I've never seen it documented. If there were a political fallout what is the precedent for sovereignty in space, particularly over Zarya? I mean there's 'talk' of separation for OPSEK and a trade and who can rule out a Kibo or Euro decision to continue post ISS. With the state of the world economy who can project political space decisions even 3 years out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I find the Russians are either behind the spoken language barrier for me, if I could translate their many videos, I'm sure I could pick up more, or, for written refs, I get the impression they play their cards close to their chest, maybe because of alarmist media coverage elsewhere. So looking at the modules that are on the concrete launch schedule and the systems on those modules is sometimes all I can write about, it's harder for me to find outright statements in english by the Russians of their distant plans. Zarya will stay where she is along with the SM and almost all the ROS as it is now(I find nothing contrary to this). The station will be as able to fly as it is now, relying on the ROS, with extra 'muscle' in the USOS for the extra weight of the USOS. But the modules going up from now on are a fully functioning space station by themselves. Nauka has all critical systems and flight control, and there is another module which I don't know the name of, but think is a propulsion module that will be used for orbital inclination transfer. I expect they will use just the new modules plus a small docking module from the ROS in the new station. This is what happened before many times, they've often had two space stations at a time in orbit. So Zarya is just going to stay with the ISS and be a moot point as to ownership in the end.
For GCC's what passes as a GCC is a bit different to public perception. I see a lot of language that implies ground staff simply watching a TV feed from another MCC(same as you and I can) as being in control and issuing commands to the ISS. When craft arrive, control of the stations orientation and so forth is handed over to the arriving country's MCC, and when a spacewalker wanders across from one side of the ROS/USOS line, they swap over to the other MCC. Ground centres are a bit more like a big business than what you see in the movie contact. The talking to the crew and issuing commands is mostly from the country that has a craft arriving, departing, or an EVA going on, the rest of the time it's just shifts of a few supervisors drinking coffee :) in case something happens.
A 2010 scenario won't happen, crew are chosen to do as the GCC says and never go crazy, no matter what happens. The ridiculous testing you see astronauts going through decades ago has less to do with psychical demands of space travel and everything to do with finding people who do as they are told without complaint. The station looks like it will end with Russia concentrating on opsek, and both RU and US not wanting to do anything with the ISS. The US will just want to let it fall from the sky on anyone who is under it, and RU will want it properly de-orbited, but would prefer not to do the job for free.
While all of the last few changes of US presidency have led to radical changes to space policy, Russia and China's space policies change much much slower. Penyulap talk14:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
VASIMR and Science experiments on the ISS
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I'm thinking this shouldn't be in the article, it's looking like a *maybe* future experiment, if at all, and has plenty of critics too. [1][2] I'm not suggesting it is a hoax, as the second ref suggests, just that it's no more than an experiment, and like all experiments, it doesn't get too much coverage, unless it's really notable, and this one is less than an actual experiment, it's just proposed. Keep / dump ? Penyulap talk09:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd pick hardware on orbit as a popular 'bright line' that editors seem to go for. Like, mentioning contemporary space stations like the Chinese station that'll be up at about the same time as the ISS deorbits gets cut by other editors as it's a proposal, or, even if it's built on the ground, they still don't seem to like it. Once it's launched it gets a mention. Ditto for the '11th station launched', there are others, but if they weren't up there, they seem to get the chop. So I guess if all the plans and schedules for opsek were disputed, there is still opsek hardware on orbit. Namely MRM1 I'm pretty sure, and definitely the Russian experiment airlock on the side of rassvet. I guess canceled modules get a mention because they were part of the original plans, and the original plan, or most of it is on orbit, so canceled mods need a mention to explain the differences to the original plan. The line seems kindof annoying occasionally, but at the end of the day I guess it helps prevent the article getting out of hand, for every one space station up there, there'd be at least 1,000 proposals to be found, some hundreds of years old and made of bricks too.
The other bright line would be it's an experiment, rather than part of the station's propulsion or orbital control systems. Penyulap talk14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The way I see VASIMR is - it's basically equivalent to the AMS in that it's an experiment and equivalent to OPSEK in that it's still being constructed. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
...But not on orbit (redline). The article does beg for a science section, I can't see why it can't have an overview of experiments and an overview of proposed experiments, except that it would be something we'd have to keep a close eye on for size, there are so many experiments and they'd only have a small amount of real estate in the article for each one. It may turn out to be ideal however, as each item that is removed from this article would go into the daughter article. The science on the ISS article is in an absolutely appalling state at the moment, the thing is just a page of red and no text. see ? We'll need to work out how to spruce that one up as well. A science section may be just the trick, so that the Summary that goes in here is always an echo of that article's introduction, and the flow between the two articles works properly. So we should aim towards a science section, separating some of what's usually included in the purpose section and putting it into the new section, in a similar way to the balancing of material between purpose and safety aspects.
So I guess the place to start, (unless we want to start here or in a sandbox), would be science as a section, and then starting off with an overview of current experiments, or the most notable, and a section for proposed experiments.
I think this is the one here
and here would be a start to show what we should have on wiki somewhere, that's what I think... Then there is the same for Europe, easy to find, and Canada might be harder, but NASA is easy. Penyulap talk00:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
As the science section grows(out of control, lol), I guess we could separate it into sections, either for each laboratory or each partner or whatever, and they have their own daughter articles and so forth. Penyulap talk00:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I and another editor were the ones who started the ISS science article and it hasn't really gone anywhere since then. The problem is that there's just so much of it. It took us a week just to get the list of experiments and one reference for each one (where it's described) done. A science section is missing from this article but it can't possibly contain more than just a summary of the most important stuff that has been done and an overview of how much there is in general, what topics are prioritised and where the research is going on. Come to think of it, lets dump the VASIMR reference. Maybe we could also have a Future plans section for all the proposed stuff - OPSEK, VASIMR, deorbit plans plus anything else which is notable and has plenty of potential to be changed or cancelled in the future. Again: beware of the science article... it may seem like there isn't much there but once you go in, you may never come out. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar10:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree there is a huge amount of it. That scares me away from even a section in this article, although, if I give up on the idea of including everything, and mentioning everything, which, as you say, is not possible, then it's just a few notable things that go in. Whats notable ? I have no idea whatsoever. But that's no reason to give up either ! Lets start by including what we ourselves think is notable, and then take any suggestions other editors give us and so forth. Don't think of rules and wikipedia guidelines, start from what you like and what you find most interesting amongst those experiments. Quite likely what you like yourself, other people will also like.
VASIMR is something to be mentioned, but it's slated to be an experiment on the ISS. It's not slated to become a part of the ISS propulsion or orbit control. There is no plan to put it into active service as far as I can find, so it's not in the right place in the article. "Proposed" is different to "scheduled". Proposed covers space elevators and artificial gravity, as well as perfectly reasonable proposals like VASIMR. Scheduled would be items on the launch table, fully paid for and approved, with construction designs, schematics and in various stages of construction. I'm not scared to help with the science article, although I am finding that all my RL time is being sucked up by wiki articles, it's getting out of hand as is. Penyulap talk15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Timelapse of aurora
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Brilliant find U5K0, that is awesome. Sorry I killed the caption, I was thinking someone would see the caption and think, hey that's a nice video, for the aurora article rather than the ISS article. It's good if the image/video and caption relate directly to the section they are in. It's in the right place and I support it, just the caption needs to work with the text, my caption is crap, but relevant, feel free to butcher.
Oh the pictures don't need to go all on the right hand side of the article, it came up in the Featured article review or peer review, can't remember which, all on the right was the style this article had before, but apparently that's not the style of the wider wikipedia. Penyulap talk18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Criticism
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hello voidxor, I hosed the Criticism section as it doesn't comply with npov. I had brought this up more than three weeks ago here on the talkpage. I didn't use the right terminology though, I said 'Planet America' rather than wp:gibberish. it's written from a completely 100% american perspective, the Japanese for example, are delighted with the ISS and the science opportunities it provides, their Lab won an idustrial design award. Please feel free to fix and restore the section though, I have no problems with it's inclusion so long as we don't leave it in such an incredibly misleading state. It says 'tax savings' for example, tax savings for whom ? The critics are all american, and I'm not so sure if it's even notable. But feel free to adopt that section. Suggestions for improvement include "American scientists have criticised" or "American Acedemics have criticised" and "tax savings for Americans". If you want to fix that part up, I'll link to the stub article for the Japanese award. Maybe the Europeans have praise or criticised the iss too ? We can find out about that. Criticism is important, especially if it is actually notable, but it still needs to be well written. Personally I don't think there has been a great deal of criticism, and it could be dumped if you like. Penyulap talk09:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with criticism sections being a POV issue, but I'll review WP:NPOV later. Also, I don't see how the country of origin for critical statements is of any relevance to whether we should allow it. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a supporter of the ISS and don't agree with these points of criticism one bit. But I believe that having a neutral point of view requires balance from both sides of an argument. That is why I allow criticism with which I disagree, as long as it is fair, articulate, and well sourced.
I urge you to always write edit summaries, especially for bold edits. Please assume good faith of the authors of the criticism section; don't delete entire sections from an article without proposing it (and waiting 24 hours for feedback) on the talk page first. I mean, I'm all for being bold when an editor is doing constructive edits, but I'd rather see caution shown on destructive edits. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have actually written and brought up these and many many more problems on the talkpage first. I've brought up the criticism section 3 weeks ago and 6 weeks ago. Often people have no interest in helping or discussing the article, they just want to tell me not to edit. I don't much care anymore. The used to say not to edit anything because of the Featured article status. I think they won't be doing that for a while, and I'm getting better at dealing with the rest of the same kind of crap. Anyhow, I do always welcome with open arms any help I do get. there are quite a few helping out. But certainly I should mention what I am doing. although it seemed almost to be setting a bad example before. Anyhow whatever. 3 weeks ago, 6 weeks ago, take your pick. Penyulap talk13:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I just gave it another read through, and I stand by killing that section off. It was written totally from an american perspective, dealing only with american experiments, american critics, american taxpayers, presenting the whole lot as the whole ISS and the taxpayers as everyone. It's hideous on currency. It ignored the other Labs, the other partners, the other science, the other taxpayers in other countries. Weigh the lot up and you don't have a significant pov criticizing the program. Penyulap talk13:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel I'm giving you a hard time. I would be concerned anytime an editor removes an entire section from a high-profile article, especially when that section provides a POV counterargument that may satisfy WP:DUE. I've seen how emotional you get on this talk page—regarding Obama's policies and whatnot—and I don't want any possible bias to influence which points of view are allowed to stand in the article. Granted, the criticism section wasn't well written, but I'd rather see the writing fixed and the points worked into more relevant sections of the article. After all, ISS is a $100,000,000,000 project, so somebody out there must object to the program. You have my support if you want to use the {{Criticism section}} tag.
I never told you not to edit! I know you've edited this article hundreds or thousands of times, but I only reverted one of your edits. Relax; this isn't personal. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It's all good, I'm not taking it personal, I think we are getting along fabulously. The only reason I got rid of it is cause it seemed like nobody wanted to fix or adopt it after six weeks, and then I decided, balancing the poor writing against no writing, I thought no writing was better in that particular instance. I'm very happy and supportive of anyone who wants to adopt that section and I'll give them all the genuine help I can. Yes, it does seem I get 'emotional' sometimes, and sometimes I think I'm the only one who can be bothered doing a really thorough cleanup, I guess the emotion is actually needed, or it'd never get done. I've returned the section, and added the template you have suggested, your idea is better than mine. I guess we should leave it a couple of months, would that be about right ? Also, the second paragraph of the expeditions section is next for the chopping block, I've saved some of it, moved it away, but all those links in it date too fast and focus on a short chronological period, the rest is re-iterating the first paragraph. I didn't want to chop it straight off as it was a lot of work for someone, but it's too dated now and I want to cut it out. What do you think of it ?
Please let me express my sincere thanks and I hope you'll continue to help me here, as I'm relatively new and don't know all the templates and so forth. I do know the ISS though, and have an uncanny knack for spotting problems. I also think I'm not too bad on writing either. Just not so good on wp:gibberish. I'm hoping to fix up the article into a correct and current article that's well written. It'd be nice for it to get back to FA, but that'd take ages, in the meantime it's more important (to me) that it's factual and accurate. Over the next few days I can put in some time, and continue with the overhaul it so dearly needed in the first place (easier now that the FARC spelled out that WAS the case).. Penyulap talk04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reinstating the Criticism section and for tagging it. Like you, I'm not sure what to do with it. So don't be surprised if I don't touch it. Tagging the section will hopefully attract the attention of editors who have an idea of what to do with it. We shouldn't feel bad about delegating the work to others, when neither one of us knows how to fix it.
It's ironic that you should mention the second paragraph of the Expeditions section because I had the same thoughts about it yesterday. You're correct about it being dated; it was probably added to the article when the crew size was transitioning from three to six. Being somebody's hard work, I didn't want to remove it. Obviously it's only relevant to Expedition 20 now, so I thought about transplanting the paragraph to that article. The second paragraph of the Expedition 20 article already makes some of the same points though. Do you think it would be appropriate to transplant a paragraph from one article to another (more relevant) one? —voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You certainly can transplant that is precisely the way articles are supposed to grow. Please do, I support that 100%. I've always cringed when new material was deleted from this article rather than being moved. We lose the material and the editor too sometimes ! I know how to fix the criticism section, but I'm not bothering because I don't think it's notable enough, in comparison to the rest of the article, whats already here, plus whats to come. Maybe I'll just leave it a month or two, and if nobody else wants to adopt it, I'll take that to mean it's not notable enough to worry about and move it to the sub article somewhere. Penyulap talk08:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding. There are a few articles that exist on wiki already but aren't balanced into this article, We've had pictures for Columbus space station the whole time, and there was nothing of it in here. I'm going to leave origins alone for a while now it's sortof started off with a new backbone, and cleanup something else. There is work there though, for anyone who'd like to summarize those articles into a few paragraphs here. Penyulap talk11:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Coming up on a month with no takers. I'm bumping the thread so it doesn't archive, and criticism regarding imminent lack of criticism can still be added easy. Penyulap talk05:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Opsek separation date 2020
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
(Russian portion is planned to be seperated prior to the ISS's deorbit whether it's in 2020 or 2028), yes, for sure, but when ? I was thinking that the Russian Space Agency would probably be a good source of info on what those crazy Russians will get up to next. The Mesa Redonda 5 is quite clear as far as I can see, and it so totally has their logo all over the thing. Russianspaceweb is certainly a reliable source too, and I won't change it back myself, I'm just going to ask myself, has the Russian Federal Space agency got the A-ok from russianspaceweb to go for separation in 2020 or not. Penyulap talk07:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Bare in mind that the currently scheduled end of mission date is 2020. If this can extended to 2028 why not opsek seperation as well? I think it's extremely unlikely thet they would seperate before end of mission for ISS. Also there is the fact that extending ISS to 2028 would probably require unanimous support and it would be very strange if the russians gave the go ahead for ISS till 2028 but seperated everything they have on orbit in 2020. Wouldn't it be better to just say something like: Under the OPSEK plans, the russsian modules would be detached from ISS before decomissioning. Or something like that. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar11:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Both the current and the old sentence are correctly phrased. Separation of OPSEK will leave the ISS in it's current configuration as it is now, minus one small module nobody is going to miss. Both stations can fly. This is typical of the Russians. They have had two stations at the same time before, I've made it clear, like they have had two stations where a crew goes up in a Soyuz to one, and is mucking about there, and then they use the Soyuz and travel across to the other station, and in the meantime a progress robot arrives at the first station, and then after a few days they leave the second station and return to the first. Building stuff while it is attached to a station is the norm too. It's the plan for opsek, to function as a factory assembling things that are attached to the station and then sending them on to the mars station. The ISS itself was like this close to being assembled whilst attached to MIR, it was the plan at some stage. All I'm saying is the Russian Federal Space Agency, and I can't see any bigger authority than them, plan to separate OPSEK in 2020. Further to that they have no requirement whatsoever to ask the 5 partners for permission as it doesn't concern them. If they were separating Zvezda, different matter entirely. Now russianspaceweb and Alain Chabot are fantasic sources, brilliant really, I can't speak highly enough of them. The ref'd page is suggesting a plan where you end up with two all russian stations. you get OPSEK, plus you get the ROS with the USOS Jettisoned. It's a new plan, but quite feasible, who knows. Either way I can't see that page being at odds with the current stated forecast or 2020 from RSA, so I can't see the problem with 2020. U5K0, do you read your talkpage on English wikipedia at all, or is there another page that you use instead ? Penyulap talk19:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I do read my talkpage. As per your posts below would you mind terribly not speaking for me? I am perfectly capuable of expressing my own opinions when I whish to do so. Also... why is OPSEK in the lead section? From an ISS point of view it's simply a detail about end of mission plans, not an important topic which affects the station that this article is about. And as per the RSA source that says OPSEK is being seperated by 2020, when was that information updated? If it's older than the 2010 decision which extended ISS to 2020 and explicitly mentionned the possibility of a further extencion to 28, I would say it's out of date given what we have from interfax and Vitaly Lopota.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar09:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that U5KO, didn't mean to speak for you. I apologize. Opsek is in the lead as the lead summarizes the article. The origin has a lot of coverage in the lead, the lead is all like past-present-future same as the article is laid out. There are two PDF's I'll link to them in a little while when I find the links, the Mesa Redonda is one, and the other one is Georgy Karabadzhak's handout at the UN-HSTI ISS Outreach seminar in Vienna 2011. Both are 2011 and have the space agency logo all over 'em. Hey, the past-present-future layout of the article would give you a pointer as to where the future plans section would go, in politics, yes? Penyulap talk04:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this bit ok?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"The new American station would be bigger and better, sending a clear signal to the world about American leadership and dominance in space." I know I put it in and all, ref'd and all that, but is this an ok thing to have in the article ? I would have felt a lot better if one of the many editors who are into the American SP on WP summarized freedom, but it was just sitting there in a somewhat famished state (for equal weight) for too long I thought. Anyhow, it's no big deal, just it may take ages for it to be assessed against wikirules, as per history. Penyulap talk07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Russian AK-T space laboratory?
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am not sure if I have heard about that one before, the name is not familiar, but the concept rings a bell. It would be a proper zero-G lab, (zero-g is a misnomer) the station has all sorts of things that disturb the state of freefall, when it's flipping it's orientation and so forth for docking and experiments, whatever, it's a busier place than a quiet unmanned platform, so there have been best of both worlds ideas a few times i head of, where experiments or modules float free and are returned for maintainence. There is a thing called a force fight where the Russian and American orientation controls arm wrestle, (of course the Russains always win out because of redundancy) but such things are anomolies rather than a norm. Anyhow it's a proposal, so I'll have no opinion on it's inclusion, as I expect people usually don't like proposals mentioned, and we should start getting shorter on real estate I guess, but U5KO will probably love to hear it and pop it into a section with the plasma engine proposal. So you'll have support there and I will stay out of your way of course. Penyulap talk01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Below is a diagram of major station components. The blue areas are pressurized sections accessible by the crew without using spacesuits. The station's unpressurized superstructure is indicated in red. Other unpressurised components are yellow. Note that the Unity node joins directly to the Destiny laboratory. For clarity, they are shown apart.
The assembly of the International Space Station, a major endeavour in space architecture, began in November 1998.[7] Russian modules launch and dock robotically, with the exception of Rassvet. All other modules were delivered by space shuttle, which required installation by ISS and shuttle crewmembers using the SSRMS and EVAs; as of 5 June 2011[update], they had added 159 components during more than 1,000 hours of EVA activity. 127 of these spacewalks originated from the station, while the remaining 32 were launched from the airlocks of docked space shuttles.[8] The beta angle of the station had to be considered at all times during construction, as the station's beta angle is directly related to the percentage of its orbit that the station (as well as any docked or docking spacecraft) is exposed to the sun; the space shuttle would not perform optimally above a limit called the "beta cutoff".[9] Rassvet was delivered by NASA's Atlantis Space Shuttle in 2010 in exchange for the Russian Proton delivery of the United States-funded Russian-built Zarya Module in 1998.[10] Robot arms rather than EVAs were utilized in its installation (docking).
The first segment of the ISS, Zarya, was launched on 20 November 1998 on an autonomous Russian Proton rocket. It provided propulsion, orientation control, communications, electrical power, but lacked long-term life support functions. Two weeks later a passive NASA module Unity was launched aboard Space Shuttle flight STS-88 and attached to Zarya by astronauts during EVAs. This module has two Pressurized Mating Adapters (PMAs), one connects permanently to Zarya, the other allows the space shuttle to dock to the space station. At this time, the Russian station Mir was still inhabited. The ISS remained unmanned for two years, during which time Mir was de-orbited. On July 12, 2000 Zvezda was launched into orbit. Preprogrammed commands onboard deployed its solar arrays and communications antenna. It then became the passive vehicle for a rendezvous with the Zarya and Unity. As a passive "target" vehicle, the Zvezda maintained a stationkeeping orbit as the Zarya-Unity vehicle performed the rendezvous and docking via ground control and the Russian automated rendezvous and docking system. Zarya's computer transferred control of the station to Zvezda's computer soon after docking. Zvezda added sleeping quarters, a toilet, kitchen, CO2 scrubbers, dehumidifier, oxygen generators, exercise equipment, plus data, voice and television communications with mission control. This enabled permanent habitation of the station.[11][12]
The first resident crew, Expedition 1, arrived in November 2000 on Soyuz TM-31, midway between the flights of STS-92 and STS-97. These two Space Shuttle flights each added segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, which provided the station with Ku-band communication for U.S. television, additional attitude support needed for the additional weight of the USOS, and substantial solar arrays supplementing the station's existing 4 solar arrays.[13]
Over the next two years the station continued to expand. A Soyuz-U rocket delivered the Pirs docking compartment. The Space Shuttles Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour delivered the Destiny laboratory and Quest airlock, in addition to the station's main robot arm, the Canadarm2, and several more segments of the Integrated Truss Structure.
The expansion schedule was interrupted by the destruction of the Space ShuttleColumbia on STS-107 in 2003, with the resulting hiatus in the Space Shuttle program halting station assembly until the launch of Discovery on STS-114 in 2005.[14]
The official resumption of assembly was marked by the arrival of Atlantis, flying STS-115, which delivered the station's second set of solar arrays. Several more truss segments and a third set of arrays were delivered on STS-116, STS-117, and STS-118. As a result of the major expansion of the station's power-generating capabilities, more pressurised modules could be accommodated, and the Harmony node and Columbus European laboratory were added. These were followed shortly after by the first two components of Kibō. In March 2009, STS-119 completed the Integrated Truss Structure with the installation of the fourth and final set of solar arrays. The final section of Kibō was delivered in July 2009 on STS-127, followed by the Russian Poisk module. The third node, Tranquility, was delivered in February 2010 during STS-130 by the Space Shuttle Endeavour, alongside the Cupola, closely followed in May 2010 by the penultimate Russian module, Rassvet, delivered by Space Shuttle Atlantis on STS-132. The last pressurised module of the USOS, Leonardo, was brought to the station by Discovery on her final flight, STS-133, followed by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on STS-134, delivered by Endeavour.[citation needed]
The gross mass of the station is not possible to calculate with precision. The total launch weight of the modules on orbit is 417,289 kg (919,965 lb) (as of 03/09/2011).[16] The weight of experiments, spare parts, personal effects, crew, foodstuff, clothing, propellants, water supplies, gas supplies, docked spacecraft, and other items add to the total mass of the station. Gas (Hydrogen) is constantly vented overboard by the Oxygen generators of the USOS (Hab OGA) and in the Russian segment 75% of the oxygen is generated by electrolysis and 25% from perchlorate or other source (providing redundancy).
I really need ideas here. I have a feeling that there's potential in this alignment stuff but it needs to be thought about and refined for this section. HELP PLEASE. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
An incredibly helpful Gnome came through the article recently name of Materialscientist, one tool they have found and use is this which is why I squished the layout of the station, haven't finished squishing yet. (I've always looked at the page where i can on different computers as it's important everyone can see it, but this tool makes it easy as. Not every resolution can be accommodated, but many can be) It's pretty wide and I'd figure just making it centered would be a good idea, as it's always going to be pretty fat, and can't see wrapping text as an advantage, because the layout is not telling a story that relates to any text. Assembly I have been kind of shy to touch out of respect / sentimentality / not wanting to tread on toes of it's main author. I had just balanced it myself by adding the assembly method of the ROS which didn't get a mention at all when I started here, but I've never compressed it's size or updated the daughter article. I put in the thing about mass of the station, as it was mentioned down to a kilogram in the infobox with no explanation or qualifications at all, and a down to the kilogram weight is kind of nuts, for the reasons I outlined. So far it seems just fine and hasn't copped any hits. I'll / I'd hose the "as of" paragraph as useless busywork / easily dated / reiteration. ditto the word "penultimate", unless it's qualified by like 'stage one' or whatever term is proper.
So fat arse could stay by itself, and the little ones could go into text I guess. Penyulap talk 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Just not too sure where abouts in the text the little ones go however, it's a puzzle just at the moment. Penyulap talk02:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Suggestions for what to chuck (into subs) please. Entire sections would qualify too. I'm thinking both criticism and cost could go into the sub-article and no-one would miss em here. Penyulap talk01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
ISS LIVE!: NASA Open Government Initiative
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It mentions the 'L2' NASA forum, NASA, an american government agency, claims repeatedly that everything it does is meant to be free for use for the public, hence all the images and so forth we can get from them. The 'L2' forum is a few bright government employees Lemonade stall (memonic, L for Lemonade), set up when a few bored government employees realized people would pay money to find out stuff, and the L2 forum is selling american taxpayers the exact same stuff twice over. So it's the nasa government, which the taxpayers paid for and fully funded, playing I'll give it to you, no i won't, here you are, no way, here take it, ha! I was kidding, no here take it really, no you can't have it, here, you paid for it already, no, wait, give me some money first.. Great stuff. People line up to pay for this stuff and think it's all good fun. The ISS live app mentioned is a commercial product. Penyulap talk03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Planned additional modules
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I can't see anyone caring about half a sentence, plus, you and U5KO are pushing propositions into the article I guess, so I can't see the problem for the time being. I think U5KO can help there.
Personally I can't see nautilus getting of the ground, but attaching an unbalanced washing machine to the end of the ISS is sure going to make the ongoing microgravity research more interesting, can't wait to hear what the researchers say about that. I guess it would go hand in hand with the free floating laboratory, but you end up shipping most of the station out of the station. Node 4 however sounds much more likely, it is following a typical NASA pathway to the station (although the launcher is different). BEAM is pure speculation at the moment, I think it should stay in the Bigelow Aerospace article, it's way over the brightlines people put up. As soon as Node 4 is approved and funded it should be written up into the launch schedule. Penyulap talk03:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have been pushing for a unified section with all things which may change significantly before they materialise called Future plans. Having said that, I have no idea why you would include all the above proposals which seem to me to be little more than an idea which has never been funded or accepted as an actual plan. Beware of vapourware.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar09:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe 'should' was the wrong word. I'm not trying to make any more work for anyone, or push anything. If I was and didn't give a damn about the effort of restructuring the article I'd just jam it in there myself rather than post it on the talk page for consideration. I just wanted to bring attention that these proposals are in a companion article. I more or less agree in the assessment of Node 4 being the most probable and the other two might remain only on paper. But considering the inclusion of subsection 'Cancelled components', in which I'd call a good portion of that vapourware, I don't think these proposals are completely unworthy of some mention or even just a link to them in the other article. That's just my opinion. Doyna Yar (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Maybe instead of Future plans with regard to Assembly "future prospects/proposals" since there seems consensus they're not firm enough to call plans? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to use candor. Feel free to suggest more work and push anything you like, it's all good. More talking and discussion on the talkpage beats the old silent hovering and attack editing and warring summaries anyday ! I find it very refreshing myself. Also, I think that your vapourware argument redefines the brightline. I agree it's proper to treat the proposed modules and canceled modules the same way. If we keep one, we have to keep the other, hose one, hose the other. Can you think of how to integrate it, what ideas can you think of ? Penyulap talk19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
U5K0, I agree some of it is vapourware, but some really isn't. It's like the next craft to go up there and dock, we can't really call the docking a future plan all the way through launch, until just after the docking. But on the other hand, you have to chuck out whatever Bigelow says when he's drunk and trying to impress his chicks too. I'd be guessing the more concrete a plan becomes, the more mention it gets in the article. Where it is mentioned would also depend on the item I guess. Some things on the launch table, but some things in that proposed modules section, and the plasma engine, I guess it goes back into orbit control, wherever boosting gets mentioned. Lolz. full circle after all that ! (OR future plans, it's all good) Penyulap talk19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I'm sorry for being so dismissive. Maybe we could have a sentence or two about the more concrete stuff and at the end of the section just put the sentence: Other additions to the station such as A, B, C, ... have also been proposed. Also there could be a link in the begining of the section a la See also: Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station#Proposed_modules. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Lets move away from ambiguous terms in the article like 'planned' and go for more specific terms like 'scheduled' and so forth, to distinguish further just where proposals are up to. It'll make sorting them out a bit easier for editors too. Penyulap talk00:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you're having I'll take a double if it just gives me a tenth of the inspiration you have going on the rewrite. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The following modules are proposed, but not yet confirmed in the ISS launch manifests.
* Russian Nodal Module - UDM with proposed launch in 2013 [19][20]
* Russian Science-Power Module-1 - combination of RM1 and parts of SPP with proposed launch in 2014 [19][20]
* Russian Science-Power Module-2 - combination of RM2 and parts of SPP with proposed launch in 2015 [19][20]
That part is wrong, as they have launch dates. needs a fix. Anyhow, thats the difference, some have approval + funding + construction + a launch date. some just have one or the other, or some. It is confusing, as there are proposed launch dates, as in "we could do this by '...'" and then there are, "the work is underway we are going to be finished and have rollout for launch on '...'". It reminds me of anomalies in the English language, we can say he or she, other languages have a single word with no sex, but we have 'you' which can be singular or plural, but other languages have a word 'you' singular, and a word 'you' plural. So we have 'proposed' but there is no specification. Like the Eskimos have 100 words for snow, we need 100 words for planned and proposed. So it's like what is in progress and going ahead, and what is talk only and likely to remain talk until someone ponies up the cash, if ever. So for the article, there are items Funded and approved, in production and construction, that will be ready to go same as any progress ship is ready to go. Penyulap talk05:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
![[icon]](/https/en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
