Talk:International Space Station

Picture proposition

Tracy Caldwell Dyson in the Cupola module of the International Space Station observing the Earth below.

Hi, I would like to get this picture into the article. I think it's a really nice photo from the ISS but don't know which section it would fit into. Thoughts?--U5K0 (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a nice one, but I don't think it easily fits in anywhere, to be honest... :-S Colds7ream (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking in the Life on board section. But I really love this picture because it remind me of a few movies so I'm not the most objective person on this issue... so if noone thinks it fits in, there's no point in doing that. Thanks for the feedback :D--U5K0 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where abouts did you find the image? I can't find it in NASA's galleries... Colds7ream (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It was on one of the ISS crewmembers' twiter account. It's over a month old. here it is --U5K0 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another link to the image http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-24/html/iss024e014263.html

--Craigboy (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

NASA considering a Bigelow Aerospace expandable-technology module for the ISS

NASA is considering the attachment of a Bigelow expandable module to the ISS for a period of two years, no earlier than 2013/2014. The following is from NASA Managers Discuss Prospect of Bigelow Inflatable on ISS, 14 Jan 2011:

The purpose of the ISS inflatable module would be a simple, limited capability stowage volume, similar in purpose to the currently on-orbit Japanese Logistics Platform (JLP), which serves as a stowage module for scientific equipment from the Japanese Pressurised Module (JPM) laboratory. The module would be certified to remain on-orbit for two years.

The module would be a collaboration between NASA and Bigelow Aerospace, with NASA HQ providing funding, the ISS National Laboratory Program providing project management, and NASA providing all Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), which includes the Passive Common Berthing Mechanism (PCBM), Flight Releasable Grapple Fixture (FRGF), smoke detector, fan, and emergency lights.

Bigelow would provide the inflatable and inner core structure of the module, and perform all required flight analysis.

Several interesting graphics are provided in the linked article. The design appears to be rather different in shape than any of the extant Bigelow space habitat modules (Sundancer, BA 330, etc.) that are planned for the Bigelow Commercial Space Station—the module shown in the graphics is much more donut shaped—but would appear to utilize a lot of the basic Bigelow expandable technology that is an extension of the 1990s NASA TransHab project. N2e (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this should be mentioned here. Alinor (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; I suppose the big indicator we'll have as to whether or not these will fly will be if Node 4 gets authorised. Colds7ream (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that location suggested by Alinor looks like a great place for it. And it seems as someone has already added the info to that page, with a citation. N2e (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NO SCIENCE

reading this article i found very little info on what kind of research was actually being done on the station!!! we must find more about what ISS actually does on daily basis!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That is because there is an entire separate article devoted to it called Scientific research on the ISS, which is linked to at the top of the "Scientific research" paragraph. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Altitude

Useful article on operating altitudes of the station in future: [1] Colds7ream (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy on the ISS?

The lead and scientific research sections of this article, and the overview section of Scientific research on the ISS, all include the claim that 'The primary fields of research include [..] astronomy' (or rephrasings of this). But none of the three sources given support this claim, and the Scientific research on the ISS article does not mention a single piece of astronomy research. Note that space exploration is not a subfield astronomy, and the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is a particle physics experiment. Have I missed something, or should the mention of astronomy be removed? Modest Genius ^talk 20:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Most number of spacecraft docked?

What is the most number of spacecraft to be docked to the station at one time.. is five a new record? Will six break the record in a few days? In STS-133's post-launch press conference it sounded like it's the "busiest" the station has ever been. Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most expensive object

The article about the world's most expensive objects was recently deleted, and it appears to nobody (other than Wikipedia) has claimed the ISS is, in fact, the world's most expensive "object". Some examples from history come to mind that could rival it.. how expensive was the great pyramid of giza, exactly? The sentence in the article should be reworded to better reflect the sources. Mlm42 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Utilisation rights

Hi everyone, I have had concern for a very long time about the diagram in the Utilisation rights section, I suggest it gives the majority of new users and casual browsers the idea that most of the station hardware is allocated to NASA, the word 'american' I would suggest needs to be inside the diagram, rather than as a comment. Or, all modules should be shown, or a station summary should be shown. The title 'international space station hardware' I suggest is misleading to casual readers who miss the comment outside the diagram.Penyulap (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)penyulap

As the diagram stands, the caption is incorrect. Unless we replace the diagram with one showing the entire station, I suggest changing the caption to "Allocation of non-Russian Federation segment hardware utilisation between nations" or similar. If you concur, please make the change. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, that we are talking about the caption within the diagram, rather than the text caption under the diagram. It's the caption contained within the diagram, that I believe is contrary to neutrality. Until a more appropriate diagram can be found or made, I'd suggest removing the diagram as a temporary measure. Penyulap (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)penyulap

I've specified the USOS in the title. Colds7ream (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello colds7ream, yes USOS is mentioned in the comment below the diagram, the Diagram itself contains the words 'international space station hardware' which I am suggesting is prominent and unclear. I suggest that some readers will read the text contained within the diagram and fail to read the qualifying comment below the diagram. I suggest the text within the diagram could be worded to reflect what the diagram shows, without relying on reading other text, Or the diagram itself could be modified to show 'international space station hardware' in a way that represents a majority of modules, or a majority of hardware, instead of only 4 out of 16? of the stations modules. Penyulap (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)penyulap

I already added 'USOS' to the title in the image itself; that's what I said above. Colds7ream (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Colds7ream, thats a big improvement, (My browser was fetching from cache, oops)Penyulap (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)penyulap

Inclusion of heavens-above website or wikipage link

I'd like to suggest a link to the wikipage, or preferably direct to the non-profit site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavens-Above or www.heaven-above.com respectively.
I'd like to suggest this location, breaking one sentence into two.:

With a greater cross-sectional area than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye,[8] websites such as heavens-above give time and direction details to do this. The ISS is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth.

Please assist me with grammar correction. I recommend this site as it has operated for at least ten years that I know of, with an impeccable reputation. It is of great assistance to new ISS fans, as they can often walk outside and see the station with their 'naked eye'. Penyulap (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)penyulap