Talk:International Space Station/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

FAC?

I came across this article and was shocked not to find the little star in the corner. It seems very, very well done. Are there any objections to nominating for featured article? --Golbez 21:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Leaving it a week until it's off the main page might be a good idea... Shimgray | talk | 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think to be a featured article it lacks (1) some legal background - the complicated structure of treaties between each space agency that regulate who has what rights and what obligations (2) a more detailed section on the truss structure and solar panels as well as the Canadaarm and ERA (3) a section on what kind of science has been done already and on what the future will focus at (4) a reference section on further materials (books, articles etc.). Thus said, I think it would make a good FA, but still has some way to go. Themanwithoutapast 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this should def be nominated, if its not quite there it won't get selected, but its certainly a strong candidate Jnb 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to do a peer review first. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Costs section

I will finish up and refine the costs section later. Themanwithoutapast 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, add the possible fact that ISS critics don't mention the costs related to defense, war mongering, farming subsidies, etc. Those costs amount to many, many times the money spent with the station annually. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.210.106 (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The costs section is pretty large. I recommend including a brief overview of costs and referencing a spinoff article on the costs. Thanks. ChemMechEngineer 06:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Air pressure?

A quick scan of the article gives no mention of the air pressure used in the ISS. According to The Hindu "safe pressure range was 610 to 880 millimetres.", and I'm hearing on the live telecast of the recent undocking that the Soyuz changed its pressure from 732 mm Hg to 669 mm Hg during a leak test, and then moved back to around 760 mm Hg. The Soyuz article does mention it operates at Atmosphere (unit) pressure, ie 760 mm Hg. -213.219.161.143 20:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"During Monday's test, McArthur and Williams hauled their sleeping bags and other personal items into the elevator-sized Quest airlock, sealed the hatch behind them, and then lowered the pressure inside from the station's standard 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) - or about the same as at sea level on Earth - to 10.2 psi, NASA officials said." [1] Do we need to mention something that is standard? Rmhermen 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The bulgarian ISS article (bg:Международна космическа станция) has information on air pressure and air composition (Кислород means oxygen and I guess Налягане might means total pressure or something like that): perhaps we could use that data after checking it from a more trusted source (which is what I'm looking for now, without too much success) or ask them directly where they took it. In general, a paragraph about living conditions (temperature, humidity...) might be a good idea. // Duccio (write me)

UPDATE: I added info about air pressure as I found a source. I'm not adding anything about temperature as I just discovered the bulgarian and italian ISS articles give different temperature values - we need to investigate more on that. // Duccio (write me)

Error

Can any fix the error at subsection Russian Research Module - 2009 i cant figure out why edit appears 6 times in this section of the artical (Gnevin 15:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC))

Featured

Why isn't it a featured candidate? NCurse 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the "Ready to be nominated for feature article?" and "FAC?" posts above on this talk page. Vsst 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many pictures and templates

There are to many templates and pictures on this article. We should translate info from this article on other Wikipedias to this article. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 18:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Want more tech info

The article, as it is now, is pretty lacking in technical details, but seems to hold nothing back for things that are historical, political or legal. I.e., the boring stuff. (And of course, lists of various things.)

I can't even find a mention of its external dimensions! What I'd like to see is some more details on things like power generation (how much?), connecting modules (how is it done? how many can there be? are they "general purpose" or highly specific?), etc. What I specifically came to look for was how it deals with waste heat; but that piece of information will have to come from somewhere else...
-- magetoo 15:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I second this. I could find no information at all about the interior of the pressurized modules - what the astronauts actually see and deal with - for example. PeepP 18:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Language Protocol

What is the language protocol for the ISS? NASA Houston and Roskosmos in Moscow take turns communicating with the station as it orbits.

In 1975, during the Apollo-Soyuz test flight, the American astronauts spoke Russian and the Soviet cosmonauts spoke English while the spacecraft were making rendezvous and during link-up.

When do the ISS occupants use English and when do they use Russian? Do ground controllers use their own language? Do they vary from the protocol when they need to ensure correct understanding? Are occupants from other nations required to know both English and Russian as a condition of participating in ISS flight operations?

Do they have ordinary electric outlets on the station for plugging in mundane devices such as shavers, battery chargers and such? Are they 120V/60 Hz, or 240V/50 Hz? Does the station's television use North American or Russian signaling, or is it a unique system with a limited scan rate and resolution for beaming signals? Do the occupants have access to television to watch during leisure hours? (A DVD player for the station would seem to be an ideal innovation to cut down on the space taken by tapes, as well as to burn discs from data fed from the ground.)

This might make an interesting addition to the main article. GBC 06:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just added an external link with detailed information on power supply and voltage from a trustable source (Boeing, the constructor) // Duccio (write me) 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

USD or CAD?

Under the information in the Cost section of the ISS, I was wondering under the total cost for CSA (Canadian Space Agency). Is the total cost of $1.5 billion in US Dollars or Canadian Dollars?

Mir 2

in history section Mir 2 redirects to Zarya while Mir 2 page sais that it is ISS Zvezda. can someone correct this 213.197.129.54 10:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Mir 2 is not Zarya nor Zvezda, they were supposed to be parts of it. In fact Mir 2 page says, correctly, the never-assembled successor to the Mir space station, the core of which is now ISS Zvezda. As a temporary solution, I'm removing the Mir 2 -> Zarya link in the history section. // Duccio (write me) 12:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

This is just a heads up that I changed one facet of a main rebuttal to the spinoff argument in favor of manned spaceflight. The section said that it's difficult to say what would have happened otherwise to money spend on manned spaceflight. Actually, economists can predict what happens to the typical untaxed dollar pretty well. The real objection is that NASA has implicitly aggrandized a lot of spinoffs that were developed for other reasons anyway. It is leaping to conclusions to say, "we bought some computers, therefore we helped invent the computer"; or to say, "we wrote a technical paper about computers, therefore we helped invent the computer". Greg Kuperberg 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Also I rephrased the criticisms to distinguish between "unimportant in principle, trivial in practice" and "useful in theory, fiasco in practice". Greg Kuperberg 16:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

To be used until...

I didn't see anywhere in the article where it discusses the longevity of the ISS. Can anyone elaborate?--Daysleeper47 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

How long do we need it for? I don't think we can easily say how long it could last. Mir lasted 15 years, twice as long as the ISS has been up so far, and probably could have lasted a good deal longer except for some accidents and the money issues. Here is a page about how they plan to do it, but not when. Rmhermen 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a NASA document which mention ISS end-of-life in 2016 (It will be 18 years old then, just a little older than MIR.) Rmhermen 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of Visitors

Below the table in the 'ISS Expeditions' paragraph it is stated that it has had 154 (non-distinct) visitors.

31 astronauts has been counted twice and Sergei Krikalev has been on the ISS three times.
July 12th 2006 120 people have been visiting ISS, including the nine people at the moment (Discovery & ISS crew 13).
81 Americans (15 women, 16 ISS-crew members, 25 double flights), 23 Russians (15 ISS-crew members, 5 double & 1 triple flights,), 1 German (1 ISS-crew member), 2 Frenchmen (1 Frenchwoman), 2 Italians (1 double flight), 1 Belgian, 1 Dutchman, 1 Spaniard, 2 Japanese, 3 Canadians (1 woman), 1 Brazilian, 1 Kazakhstani and 1 South African.

--Necessary Evil 11:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)I will change the number. --Necessary Evil 11:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get how we're counting them: non-distinct means that if a guy flyes two times to the station he's counted twice. Article says The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 120 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station). which is wrong (example: Italy had two distinct visitors but three non-distinct). Perhaps we should say: ''The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 141 (non-distinct) and 120 (distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station).
// Duccio (write me) 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think all readers understand the difference between distinct and non-distinct, I thought it was short/long time visitors. If someone knew the distinct number of MIR visitors or for the comparison; MIR visitors for the first 5 ½ years, a better comparison is obtainable. --Necessary Evil 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand and share your point: a comparison based on distinct visitors would be better. Even better would be to put both numbers of visits, distinct and non distinct, in the article. Anyway, as long as we don't have the number of distinct visitors of the Mir, we can't keep The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 120 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station) as it is uncorrect and contradictory. I've edited, see if you like it. // Duccio (write me) 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'ISS Expeditions' paragraph is correct now. Now the readers are just waiting for you to figure out the number of Mir's distinct visitors ;-)

--Necessary Evil 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these reasons: one section is a stub, all external jumps need converted to cite format, the sentence in the lead in parens should be a regular sentence, footnotes go at the end of a sentence, not in it. Rlevse 23:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• 'one section is a stub' - someone added this after the article was GA nominated - I will remove it, because this information is actually in a separate article that is referenced in here. 'external jump conversion' - again about 40% of GA do have both cites and direct external jumps, an article should be sources, in which way does not matter - 'fn at the end of sentence' -> if a cite only refers to something specifically in that sentence it does not make sense to source the whole sentence, rather it would be wrong to do that. Themanwithoutapast 06:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • fixed the cites to 'standard' cite form and remedied your other points. Themanwithoutapast 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the section stub since this article lacked information on how life support is provided on the station, a key point in a space station article! Removing the section-stub was a bad move: this doesn't change the fact that we will have to write a paragraph on that, the lack is just less showy. // Duccio (write me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

from the GA criteria: the citation of its sources is essential" Rlevse 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, citations ARE essential, but not their formating... Themanwithoutapast 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And anyway, didn't your edit fix the formatting too? // Duccio (write me) 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see footnote 5 for a sample. Fixing the two articles you nominated will only make them better, which is one reason why I suspect you nominated them. They have FA potential, but need work and I am only trying to help.Rlevse 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Failed due to non compliance. Rlevse 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

expeditions

The article lists Expeditions - but doesn't say what an Expedition is! How is that different from an STS flight? I'm starting to guess an expedition has to do with the people, (and sts with the flight)? Could someone add an small explanation right above the list of expeditions. 71.199.123.24 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure why this actually needs to be clarified. This article is on the International Space Station. As outlined in the article there are multiple spacecrafts visiting the ISS, but there obviously is also a crew onboard the ISS permanently even when no Space Shuttle is docked to the station. That crew is Expedition X. Themanwithoutapast 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Themanwithoutapast is right, anyway I've made a small explanation, just check my english as I might have made mistakes: International Space Station#ISS Expeditions. // Duccio (write me) 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Duccio. And Themanwithoutapast: it might be obvious to you, but was I just supposed to 'know' that Expedition means a crew? That's not what it means in the dictionary. Duccio: english looks good, I just changed a : to a ; 71.199.123.24 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense to clarify, if it is not totally clear to everyone. I did not want to offend anyyone. Cheers, Themanwithoutapast 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

STS-115 is apprently also ISS mission(?) "12A". It's happening during ISS Expedition 13, though, right? Because of the long 'return to flight' delay in STS missions?
--3Idiot 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lousy Apologists

So some apologists are trying to cover up the truth that we've time and time again picked up the tab on the ISS for deadbeat countries who have defaulted on their promises. This is ridiculous.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.143.59 (talk • contribs) 13:52, August 25, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the US has a wonderful track record in flying the European and Japanese modules, not to mention providing the Crew Return Vehicle. Perhaps you would like to read more about the topic before insisting on inserting your personal interpretation of history at the top. Shimgray | talk | 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, if this is the Truth, plain and unvarnished, I'm sure you can find a reliable source to quote saying so... Shimgray | talk | 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

New material

I'm not confident in adding this to the article, can someone get it.

Stub reads: Vozdukhis a Russian carbon dioxide removal system used on board the International Space Station (ISS)

meatclerk 05:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC), part of the Orphaned Article Crew

Criticism

The criticism section lacks sources. Should we remove something? After all, is the ISS particoulary criticised so that we need a paragraph about it? Other space programs (STS, Hubble and so on...) have been much more the target of criticism: the Station didn't even suffer from major/critical hardware failures and we have no indication that the cost of ISS has ever been underestimated, as confirmed by the costs paragraph of our article. Can we please try to figure out the size of disappointment surrounding this project? ISS money waste returns five times less results than Shuttle money waste. // Duccio (write me) 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted this statement from the criticism section on the argument that the citation was secondary and no primary was available: "However, critics say that NASA broadly claims credit for 'spin-offs' that were actually developed independently by private industry". The reference was to a an article by Robert Park, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/park.htm . The claim that this sentence is not adequately sourced is untenable. The sentence summarizes what critics say. Robert Park is one of the most prominent critics of the space station in America, and he is also applauded by many other critics and skeptics in the scientific community. If the editor who deleted this wanted material evidence that the criticism is true, that might require a better reference. But then the right statement would be, "However, NASA broadly claims...".

In fact, I do think that the criticism is simply true: NASA expansively claims credit for spin-offs that were invented elsewhere. Since I do not have conclusive references on this point, I want to leave it at this. Greg Kuperberg 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a sentence after this statement referencing NASA's page for ISS spinoffs. I think there's probably a better way to state this in terms of balacing out the criticism. The criticism statement is very broad and implies that NASA takes credit for inventing things it did not. Viewing the many spinoff pages that NASA has, I don't think this is a fair assessment. NASA clearly states (espcially in its Spinoff publication) exactly how they contributed to a project, whether it be providing help to a company to improve something the company invented, provide the technology to kick start an invention by a company, or actually invent something themselves.

While this statement is a referenced criticism from a noted critic, it does not provide any evidence to support the broad claim. While I have not edited it to state that the criticism does not have any examples to support itself, I can see adding that in later. Cjosefy 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On one point you are right, at least in regards to NASA's careful list of spinoffs on its web site. The point is not so much what NASA itself claims as spinoffs, as the general perception that there have been tremendous spinoffs from programs such as the space station. For example, I have heard people say that NASA transformed computers, or that they invented Velcro and Tang and Teflon and thousands of other things, etc. NASA can benefit from these arguments, and slyly encourage them with its own arguments that sound similar but are much narrower, instead of vehemently refuting them. Your link to the NASA spinoffs page is very interesting, because the spinoffs there don't amount to a whole lot. They claim credit for a slightly better microwave oven, slightly better golf clubs, slightly better 360º cameras, and a few other things like that. Is that the best that they could brag about? The argument was "billions of dollars' worth of tangible benefits"; this sort of NASA page is clearly meant to encourage the argument without logically supporting it.

Anyway, I did change "claims credit" to "is credited". I also thought that it was only fair to add a statement that NASA's spinoff list is not remotely enough for the spinoff argument. Greg Kuperberg 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The list of ISS specific spinoffs is certainly not impressive. However, re-reading the paragraph, the criticisms seem to be aimed at the manned spaceflight program as a whole. When referencing NASA's claims it is framed not by what came from the ISS, but what has come from all of human spaceflight. With that in mind, I would probably change the NASA website reference to point to the main spinoff page which has much more information and far more impressive and substantial spinoffs. As it stands now, I think claiming the spinoffs from the ENTIRE NASA manned spaceflight program are not impresive, and then linking to just the ISS spinoffs is not terribly fair. I did not realize this yesterday.

Also, to be fair, the comment about "billions of dollar's worth of tangible benefits" is unsourced at worst, and at best may occur in the opinion article cited (and even there without any source to where this claim cam from). Since NASA has an entire spinoff website, it might be more effective to get some actual words from NASA that state what they claim the spinoff benefit has been. If we get that, the criticism from Park is more meaningful because it is framed in terms of what we show as NASA's own words. Cjosefy 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably what Park has in mind in particular is what NASA's allies in Congress (which is to say, most of it) say about spinoffs rather than NASA would put on their own web site. Of course on a static, official web page, they're going to be very technical and careful. But meanwhile the politicians who provide the money can justify it with all kinds of unsupported claims and outright nonsense. Look here [2] for example. Weldon and Culberson not only casually claim billions of dollars of spinoffs, they specifically credit the space shuttle and the space station with curing diseases. Thanks to NASA, we have artificial limbs, and new antibiotics, and all kinds of other wonderful new things to help suffering, hospitalized Americans. Park would say that NASA is fully complicit in this kind of talk, even if their own statements are more careful. After all, these Congressmen provide the money.

I think that there is a certain veritas in having an unsourced statement that there have been billions of dollars of tangible benefits. I'm not saying that Wikipedia itself should stay unsourced. Rather, there is clearly a widespread public belief, which is not properly sourced, that there is a mountain of great spinoffs. The belief is not quite consistent as to whether it's NASA as a whole that deserves credit, or all of human spaceflight at NASA, or the shuttle or space station specifically. So I think that this section should be rephrased to say something about intuitive perceptions about spinoffs, rather than only living in a world of sourced arguments. Greg Kuperberg 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that public perception probably overstates NASA's impact. To think that NASA invents all these things is wrong, but it is true that NASA technology has played a part in a great deal of commercial products. Artificial limbs have been helped by NASA technoloy. Computers have been helped by NASA technology.

I think a fair criticism would be that NASA and its supporters tend to overstate the direct benifits and spinoffs from the technology in order to gain funding, BUT there is no denying that NASA technology has played significant roles in numerous products. We shouldn't focus on the "billions of dollars" stuff because I believe if you actual find all products that have encorporated some sort of NASA technology you would probably come up with "billions of dollars" worth of stuff. Cjosefy 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that some of the things that NASA has done in the past 50 years, if you take all sides of NASA, has had some important spinoffs. I happen to know an example: the JPL bounds for error-correcting codes. (But JPL is not human spaceflight.) I do not know if the incremental value of the spinoffs really add up to billions of dollars, but for all I know it does. It would kind-of bizarre if a high-technology agency did hundreds of different things over the course of decades and somehow never had any spinoffs.

But the argument on this particular page is more targeted than that. This is after all the ISS page, not the NASA page. In the absence of sources, the argument so far is: NASA has had great spinoffs, therefore let's fund the space station. Even if it were established that past NASA human spaceflight was particularly fruitful in spinoffs, it could have been for historical reasons that do not apply to the space station. Beyond that, there is a great deal of unquantified free association not only in public opinion, not only on the floor of Congress, but even in what you say. For example, you mention computer technology. Why is there no question that NASA has had a significant impact on computer technology? Because they bought and used computers? I buy and use computers too, but no one credits me with spinoffs just for that reason. Since you say that the spinoffs can't be denied, what really persuaded you?

Again, I think that a place for this Wikipedia page to start is the popular perceptions and especially political perceptions of spinoffs, in the absence of a clear argument about actual spinoffs. As for actual spinoffs of the space station specifically, your link to the official NASA page is very useful, because the spinoffs listed there are so modest that they clearly don't justify the space station. Greg Kuperberg 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

About ISS criticism, let me say one thing: "criticism" is too generic. The ISS is seen in a much different way depending on where you are. Here in Europe, for example, the station is percieved in a better light. I think we should speak of "criticism in the usa", "criticism in russia", etc. // Duccio (write me) 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Speed of the Spacestation

In the wiki the speed of the ISS is cited as "Average speed: 27,685.7 km/h". Can it be assumed that this is the orbit speed of the ISS?

Space tools

Can we have an article on space tools? Is Space tools a good title? --Gbleem 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Space tools book excerpt.

This "Modified IFM Hacksaw" was not needed.

Life Span of the ISS

How long after completion is the ISS expected to remain a viable station? Is there any talk as to what will happen to the station if/when the time has come to abandon it?

The current schedule is 12 years to build it (1998-2010), 6 more years to operate it (to 2016). When abandoned, it will have to be carefully deorbited. [User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why the station won't operate more than six years after it's finished being built? And that after all the money they spent putting the damn thing in orbit, they're just going to crash it into the ocean? Why doesn't it make more sense to use it for something, anything, in space since it's already there? I think that space exploration is important, but it seems hard to justify the expense if the station isn't even going to last as long as my first car, which was already ancient when I bought it and that I did not really know how to maintain. 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be safe to operate for at least six years. In reality, they most likely will keep using it, as long as deemed safe. However. remember that some core elements such as zarya and zvevda will then have been in use for over 18 years. That is a long time for any hardware, let alone for stuff that is operating in extreme heat/cold/radiation/micro-meteorite environments. To be in use long after that, several modules (Zarya, Zvezda, Unity, Destiny) will most likely have to be replaced, and since the US is going to Mars, only Russia, Europe, Japan and China will be able to do that. It would be a very complicated refit of the station. I think that the maximum use time of any module will be around 25 years. The solar panels and truss, with some extra panels might probably be usable a lot longer. All in all, it will come down to either building a complete new station, or continuously swapping out older components. Expect the involvement parties to start talks about this when it's finished in 2010. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I guess we have a ways to go in terms of improving the durability of "space architecture," but yeah, I can see why that would be a concern, especially since it's hard to go outside. . . . 10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

When you say de-orbited, do you mean like Mir it will burn up in the atmosphere once the final crew has left, or will it be kept on Earth (i.e. parts in (a) museum). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure I heard somewhere that NASA plan to fly the Shuttle successor, the Orion spacecraft to the station, after the shuttle's retired. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean that they will let it crash on earth. It is impossible to ever bring something as large back to earth in any other way. Orion will service the space station between 2014 and 2016. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

how it will look in 2010?

Would be nice if someone puts in article computer-generated picture of completed station in 2010...

Suggestions?

Is there any room or sense in ordinary people making suggestions for the space station? Mine would be to install an ion thruster like the one used on Smart-1 for compensating for atmospheric drag. In this way the station wouldn't need the occasional orbit boost using heavy & less efficient fuels and instead a continuous low thrust to fight the atmospheric drag would only improve the weightlessness (see Microgravity).85.176.99.68 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion/Question: Why does the ISS not have a spare Space Vechicle permanently at the ISS, that could be used in an emergency to take people back to earth, and/or to go on a space rescue mission if necessary??

"ISS" page move & redirect

The page ISS, which is currently a disambig, is up for moving to ISS (disambiguation), with the page ISS being redirected here, on the grounds that this is the most common usage. Please share your opinions at Talk:ISS. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Spotted this article on the GA candidates list and thought I'd offer a little feedback...

• The lead section contains a lot of information that may well be relevant to the article, but doesn't really belong in a basic introduction to the ISS.

Are the roles of Brazil and Italy really so important that they need mentioning here?

"(The actual height varies over time by several kilometres due to atmospheric drag and reboosts)" Is this caveat really needed in the introduction?

Could the introduction do with a paragraph on what the ISS is actually used for? The answer to this question is a bit vague, I know, but it seems important

The final paragraph of the lead reads a bit too much like a grab-bag of facts about the station. It needs recasting somehow; will think about how to do this.

• Does the ISS=Space Station Alpha? The article doesn't make this clear.

• Two paragraphs repeat each other in describing how construction began in November 1998. That only needs to be said once.

• "when all four photovoltaic modules will be in their definitive position the aft-forward axis will be parallel to the velocity vector" I understood this, but thousands wouldn't. Could it somehow be rephrased?

• A little more info on life support couldn't hurt, although this might not be a top priority. I understand there have been problems with the Elektron oxygen generator recently. Worth a mention?

• Utilization: at present this section includes only information on the legal agreements that govern utilization. What is really needed is some information about what the ISS is actually used for, what sort of scientific research goes on there, generally what purpose it serves in the context of manned spaceflight.

• Miscellaneous: in my opinion this section really isn't necessary. "Space tourism" fits logically under the heading of Utilization. And microgravity can be discussed in the context of what sort of scientific research is done on board.

Hope these comments are helpful. MLilburne 07:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: the list of External Links needs weeding out. At present there are two ISS trackers and three "see the ISS pass overhead" type sites listed. One would be enough. MLilburne 07:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

1. Well-written? Fail

• Lead is badly organized, as mentioned above
• There are some awkward sentences. ("The Italian Space Agency similarly has separate contracts for various activities not done in the framework of ESA's ISS works (where Italy also fully participates)." for example.)
• A few technical details aren't explained very clearly.
• There are a couple of places where information is repeated, as in the date when ISS construction began.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable? Weak pass There is no real question of its accuracy and verifiability, but the article does have fewer footnotes than is usually expected of GAs. One footnote per paragraph is a good rule to aim for.

3. Broad in coverage? Fail As noted above, the article really needs a section on the day-to-day utilization of the ISS, plus perhaps more information on its life support systems.

4. Neutral POV? Pass Criticism section is quite well handled.

5. Stable? Pass

6. Images? Pass

This is a difficult article to get to GA status, because of the breadth of the topic, and in general it is very good. Do feel free to resubmit once these issues have been dealt with. MLilburne 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

current spaceflight?

should this article have the {{Current spaceflight}} tag on it? Mlm42 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think so, yes. MLilburne 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So would I, and seeing as there is no opposistion, I am going to add it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's gonna be removed when STS-116 lands, right? // Duccio 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't have been. There was no explanation for its removal, so I've re-added it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The tag's own description says not to use it for ISS articles. See {{Current spaceflight}} - Bevo 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

China

This article should probably mention the situation with China and the ISS. Reportedly, China wants in but the US says no. Not sure which section it belongs in. [3] [4] [5] [6] 211.28.57.101 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I second this idea. China's interest warrants more than one passing reference. The Yeti 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Structural Changes to article

I made heavy structural changes to remove redundancies and create a clearer structure. If you are not happy with my changes please say so. Themanwithoutapast 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Time zone aboard?

Does anyone know which time zone the "ship clock" runs at? I think that would be relevant to the article. Poktirity 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be GMT/UTC [7][8]SeanMack 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to ask this question myself. I always naturally assumed it was UTC, but after the recent computer malfunctions, our article says a false fire alarm woke the crew up at 11.43 UTC. Why would they be asleep at noon? 58.7.224.214 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any official sources for this, but I'm fairly certain that ISS, like any other manned spacecraft, uses the local time of their ground control station, in this case Houston. This is a purely practical matter; time zone conversions would be a frequent opportunity for mistakes and misunderstandings, and they really want to avoid those. --Derlay 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the ground control station was both Houston and Baikonur? 58.7.215.94 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins and start of the program

I don't think that the story is correct. Freedom in the eighties was already involving Japan, Canada and Europe. Russia merged their program in the nineties. Columbus was not a separate station. There were two elements, a free flyer, the MTFF, which got cancelled for lack of funds and an attached element which was part of Freedom from the start and called the Columbus APM. When all the other Columbus elements got cancelled or renamed, the Columbus APM became Columbus.Hektor 20:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't quite so definite. The U.S. could never decide what they wanted (or would allow others to do.) See [9] for slightly more detail. Rmhermen 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Training section

I spent some time in Houston at Johnson Space Center and got a decent introduction into the training process for astronauts and cosmonauts going to the ISS. I also have a few photos of mockups. However, I'm still new to editing articles, so I'm not entirely sure where it would fit in. My first inclination was to include a training subsection under "miscellaneous", but maybe someone else has a better idea? If there's any information people think I should include, I'd be happy to try (if I know it and can verify it). Thanks. Malderi 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend uploading the images at Wikicommons. That way they are there if it is deemed good for them to be in the article. If you aren't sure about a training section, perhaps you might want to put it onto the talk page or a sandbox so other editors can look at it first. As a final note, if you want to get over some newness jitters, perhaps you might want to be adopted.--Miguel Cervantes 23:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I have updated this article to Good Article Class. It is now neccessery to:

• Format the citation websites with the cite-web template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natl1 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Micro-meteor(ite) shielding

I have read several news articles in the last year (latest example) that refer to Micro-meteor(ite) shielding on the [ISS]. What is this technology and how does it work. I have no been able to find any information about it anywhere, especially on wikipedia. I am really curious as to what it is and how it works... Could anybody make an article about this or include info about in within this article if more appropriate? Thanks Butnotthehippo 07:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• What those articles refer to is just the general structure of the ISS modules, which are constructed to withstand micrometeroits (=the material the modules are made of is thick enough to shield them from micro-metorits). There is not separate "mirco-meteor shield" like the articles make one think. Themanwithoutapast 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Days in Occupation

Is the "total time occupied" statistic on the right sidebar inclusive of Shuttle crews' docked time before Expedition 1? Several Shuttle crews "occupied" the station before Expedition 1. Or is it only the total time of ISS-specific Expedition crews? Malderi 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, lets see, 2316 days from March 7 appears to just barely reach the start of November 2000, so no they did't count the pre-Shuttle missions. I got the value from the NASA site counter.

Really it makes more sense to count whenever human beings are aboard. Sagittarian Milky Way 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A -Class

Is this article is now in the a-class on the assesment scaleJer10 95 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Magnitude

I've been trying to find information on the magnitude of the station, both now and after completion. All I can find is an article from 2006 just after the recent solar panels were installed, but before they were unfolded. Does anybody know the exact number and a comparison to how it will look compared to Venus after completion? Mithridates 04:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on where you are looking from.--Taida 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well of course it does, but I'm looking for a general range. Mithridates 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I once red it'll be the brightest element (apparent magnitude) of the sky after the sun and the moon, once completed. // Duccio 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Read more here. // Duccio 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spotted it several times in the sky around magnitude -1.0. So it's brighter than any stars but not quite Venus yet. Still, they've got a lot more stuff to add, plus I think having a shuttle docked adds quite a bit. 66.253.245.50 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Completion in 2006

I think I can recall that the ISS was originally thought to be completed by 2006. Is that true? Astroguy2 08:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that too Sagittarian Milky Way 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pressurized modules of the International Space Station

I propose creating a Pressurized modules of the International Space Station article, and moving the sections of the International Space Station article which cover the modular structure of the station there. The reason for this is that the International Space Station article is quite long, and there is sufficient material about the modular structure to create a new article from it. Would anyone care to discuss this before action is taken? (sdsds - talk) 02:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - maybe if we had a more condensed overview of the modules in the main article, similar to what is being done currently in the Mir article, it would make the page a little more readable. Colds7ream 09:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Carefully. User:Pedant 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right - i've made a start on a new subarticle, Future components of the ISS, in order to get the ball rolling here. Hopefully we can split this down nicely. Colds7ream 08:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't link to the edit-revision from which you copied the content. Now you have broken GFDL attribution requirements.. And why call it "Future components of the ISS" ?? now we have to copy and past the sections on each and every launch. the proposes Pressurized modules of the International Space Station was a much better name. For time related information of the construction we already have the ISS assembly sequence article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do what? Colds7ream 10:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are required to keep the history of copy pasted content "findable". Especially when you copy and paste large pieces of text from/to another article, then you it's always best to link to the revision of the old article. I made a dummy edit to the new page that should fix it. diff of dummy edit --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Didn't know that; thanks very much for fixing it for me. :-) As for the article name, I figured that we could possibly keep the summarisation of the pressurised modules in the main article, as is being done in the Mir article, and so it would be best to put the parts that are still on the planet in a separate article. I was also going to split off an article of the Legal Aspects, Costs & Criticisms of the station. Would that still be a good idea, do we think? Colds7ream 11:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just thinking that this is moving the problem 3,5 years into the problem. Why not only have a small "configuration" section in this article dealing with: Current configuration, Final configuration. Then link from that section to the article on Assembly, the Truss article, and a "Pressurized modules" article (containing both in orbit and to be launched, as well as cancelled perhaps). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Attitute control problems

All morning I've been seeing news reports about serious problems with attitude control on the ISS. I don't have any expertise in this area, and if no one else wants to do it I can come back later and find sources, but this is what I've heard: The Russian computers that control the station's orbit are all down, and as of now, the Space Shuttle is being used as a manual control. The Shuttle can only remain in orbit for about fifteen more days, for reasons I haven't heard stated, and if the computers aren't back online at that time the crew of the ISS may be forced to abandon the station and return on the Shuttle. This all comes as the Shuttle crew is attempting to repair that damaged thermal blanket. PaladinWhite 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I was surprised that no section or page exists documenting significant incidents on the ISS. I was looking to link to the section or page from STS-117 for this power problem, but alas there is nothing to link to. Theflyer 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This information is very important it should be added. Also i heard that shuttle do have some problem too right?. --SkyWalker 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've started a new section called "Major Incidents" and a sub-section under that called 2007 computer failure. I've seeded it with the initial citation from STS-117 but it will need a lot more work as much as transpired since that initial citation. Theflyer 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Diagram request

{{reqdiagram}} It's a bit confusing to figure out on first reading what components were in the original design, which are in the current design, which have been launched, and which have yet to be launched. A unifying diagram or two would be very helpful. -- Beland 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a "Evolution of ISS design" article would be a better idea to start to tackle this problem. (although some graphs probably cannot hurt) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer Malfunction

What OS are they running?

Typo

"There is a fixed percentage of ownership for the whole space station. Rather Article 5 of the IGA sets forth that each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals."

Shouldn't this read "There is no fixed percentage of ownership" ? User:Pedant 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it to me. Fixed. --pie4all88 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A usable source

[10] This nasa site is a good source for people who want to add some info about the life and science systems of the ISS. Might be useful if we ever want to get those Living aboard ISS and Science aboard ISS pages off the ground. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source; I used it for the Scientific Research section. --pie4all88 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Table in Current assembled components section

I'm wondering about the table in the Current assembled components section. It is quite similar to the table in the ISS assembly sequence article. What motivates having this material in two locations? (sdsds - talk) 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some IP just changed that section, however did not think before changing it - the dimensions in it before were "as deployed" and not the dimensions in the Shuttle. Regarding duplicated information, this article just states the current assembled components in contrast to all components with pictures in the separate article. Themanwithoutapast 20:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Research Section

Just added a whole Scientific Research section. I came to the page looking for information about the research done on the ISS and when I couldn't find any and I read other people's requests for a section about it, I decided to spend a while and write one up. If anyone is interested in adding to it or providing more specific data for this or a subset of this article, [11] and [12] are good places to look for more (so far) unused information (this is also noted in a comment in the article). You can use this section for discussion on the new section if you wish. Thanks! --pie4all88 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me - good job! :-) Colds7ream 18:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Error in Orbital Altitude

In the station statistics section the Orbital Altitude is stated as 101.3kPa - which is a pressure (probably the internal) not a height. Anybody got the Altitude ? Muzzah 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should just be the average of perigee and apogee altitudes (which I just added to the article); that is the same as the altitude of a circular orbit with the same period. --Derlay 23:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed First Paragraph

I think this is cleaner (last sentence):

The International Space Station (ISS) is a research facility currently being assembled in space. The station is in a low Earth orbit (Box orbit) and can be seen from earth with the naked eye: its altitude varies from 319.6 km to 346.9 km above the surface of the Earth (approximately 199 miles to 215 miles). It travels at an average speed of 27,744 km (17,240 miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day. The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia (RKA), Japan (JAXA), Canada, (CSA) and Europe (ESA).[4]

If no one objects I'll just change it in a bit. Topher0128 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Even with the footnote regarding ISS participation of members, it is not completely correct to state that ESA is the space agency of Europe. ESA is an inter-governmental agency. It is not the space agency of the EU. It is not the space agency of the continent. Even though it uglifies the sentence, it should probably read,

The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia (RKA), Japan (JAXA), Canada, (CSA), and the inter-governmental European Space Agency.

Comments? (sdsds - talk) 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Box orbit? // Duccio 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Miscalculations

Spacecraft Operations: $800 million consisting of $125 million for each of software, extravehicular activity systems, and logistics and maintenance. An additional $150 million is spent on flight, avionics and crew systems. The rest of $250 million goes to overall ISS management.

This calculation is incorrect. The constituent costs do not add up to the total.

 $125 million X 3

+ $150 million + $250 million = $775 million

These are rounding errors - if you follow the link, that is the source of the information, you will find the exact numbers. Themanwithoutapast 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review concern

I am concerned this article fails to meet attribute 3a of the "good article" requirements. It does not address at least one major aspects of the topic, namely: station-keeping propulsion. I feel this is a serious ommission; serious enough that I wouldn't oppose a formal GA delisting review. Of course adding material covering this aspect would fix the concern, but the article is already marked as being "too long". What's the right way to approach this catch-22? (sdsds - talk) 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a total restructuring of the article. I think these are some of the main things we should address and structure the article with. We need to move a lot of esp. costs and criticism to a sub article in my point of view. We need to address in an "accessible" way the following points, and move a lot of the details to subarticles.

• Lead (which is actually good these days)
• History
• Design (goals?)
  • Components (what [life,science,boost] is where by who), docking systems, arm, truss)
  • Propulsion (CMG, progress boosts, computers)
  • Life Systems (Water, Waste, O2, CO2, supplies??)
  • Electric System (SAW, batteries, SSPTS)
  • Communication systems (bands, bandwidth, cams, email, ham)
• Science aboard ISS (type of experiments)
• Living aboard ISS (Exercising, daily schedule, Expeditions)
• Criticism
• Costs (expected cost, total cost, cost of maintaining)
• Legal structure (law in space)

These are my ideas, but I might have forgotten some stuff. One thing we should avoid, is launchdates of components, and being overzealous in making sure we name EVERY single component in the main article. We should focus on clarity and summarizing and on completeness of topics over detail of a single topic. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

How can this article be too long? It is the International Space Station for pete's sake! Of course there is going to be a lot to say about it. Andy120290 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

To say an article is too long is not to say Wikepedia should include less material about the subject. Rather, it only says Wikipedia should have more articles on the subject! The art lies in finding good ways to divide up the material into a set of related articles. (sdsds - talk) 09:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)