Talk:International Space Station/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

ENGVAR and opportunities for commonality

Editors contributing to this article, particularly to the lead section, should be familiar with -- and willing to edit within -- the guidelines provided by Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities for commonality. When there is no need to use words spelled differently in different variants of English, those words should be avoided. Programmeatically. (sdsds - talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Open items from the closed PR4.

The following items were left open when the last peer review closed, so I'm listing them here to work through:

• The second sentence of the Purpose section doesn't quite work for me because the same advantage can be derived from unmanned spacecraft such as the HST. I think it needs to explain why it is advantageous to have a human crew present.
• Could you expand on "The atmosphere on board the ISS..."? Is this atmospheric configuration primarily for astronaut comfort? For example, contrast with commercial aircraft flights that use lower cabin pressure to reduce the stress on the cabin. Another alternative was a lower pressure of pure oxygen.
• Can the expression "Long-term expedition crews" be defined before it is used?
• I'd like to see some mention of materials processing among the experiments being performed.
• The article is notably lacking a section on criticism, particularly with regard to the discussion about cost versus expected scientific benefits. I think this is essential for neutrality. Yes the "Politics and financing" section links to "International Space Station program", which covers the criticism of the station, but that is not summarized here.

• Done. Colds7ream (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a little more coverage of safety issues, such as debris impacts, EVAs and radiation.
• In the Space Station section, could you cover the possibility of emergency evacuation?

• Personally, I feel these would be better suited to Major incidents involving the International Space Station - any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Station images in modules table

User:Reywas92 has raised an interesting issue in the current FAC, in that the station view images in the pressurised modules table are unnecessary. Whilst this format is pretty much standard across the modular space stations articles (e.g. Mir and Assembly of the International Space Station), I'm inclined to agree; the whole point of this column is to demonstrate the ongoing evolution of the station, and, as a number of components are, of course, unpressurised, the images series has large gaps in it. I thought I'd best bring it here for comment however, partly because its a fairly major change, but also because I'm not adept enough at table coding to confidently remove the column. :-D Thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Having heard no opposing views, I went and executed the change, using the spare column to put references in. Colds7ream (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Man-tended spacestation

according to Georgi Grechko, the ISS was better build as a man-tended space station (where robots instead of humans perform the laboratory tests and a human simply visits occasionally to take home the test results. At present, everything is done by humans.

Please include as criticism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.48.4 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? If so, I'll be happy to add it. Colds7ream (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Permanent Logistics Module?

It's currently in planning stages to leave a modified MPLM onboard the station as a "Permanent Logistics Module", taken up on STS-133. It's written here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/sts-133-final-space-shuttle-flight-baselined-into-fdrd/ Should there be a "possibly planned" section (bad title, obviously) for the Modules section? It's not 100% yet whether the MPLM will be modified for long-duration stay, but it's notable that it's being planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malderi (talk • contribs) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Visiting spacecraft

Orion currently is not expected to be flying by 2015, much less the 2014 that this article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotoguzzi (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki style - International date formats?

Per wiki style, shouldn't the article use the international date formats for text (e.g., "...launched on 20 July 1969...") and citations (e.g., "Retrieved on 2009-07-20...")? 75.44.36.242 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, given the variant of English in use. Thanks for bringing it up. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

STS119 and STS 127 missing

There are no additions after May 2009 and STS 124. Can someone update this please? user:mnw2000 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Corrections to the ISS Configuration SVG

I have several minor suggestions to correct the ISS Configuration diagram.

1. The Zvezda micro-meteoroid shields are already on orbit. They were launched by shuttle and temporarily stored on PMA-1. They were later installed on Zvezda over several spacewalks.

2. The Pirs Docking Compartment (DC-1), which is also already on orbit, is mislabel as part of MLM Outfitting and pending US Launch.

3. Five Express Logistics Carriers (ELCs) are diagramed but only four are on the manifest to be launched.

4. The JEM PM should have its proper name, Kibo, displayed in italics as all the other station modules.

68.55.88.108 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Ugly Tom, August, 27, 2009.

I have one addition: 5. The PLM is not going to be at Node 2 zenith. Currently the discussion is whether Node 3 is relocated back to Node 1 nadir and the PLM to Node 3 starbort or port. Anyway, considering that the PLM hasn't even yet given the go-ahead, I think it shouldn't be in the diagram at all. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the PLM has been confirmed, see Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and this: [1] -MBK₀₀₄ 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your source mentions internal NASA planning. There is no official confirmation whatsoever, no change in the official timetable or launch manifest. I say it again, the PLM has NOT been given the official go-ahead. And as to where it should go, Node 2 zenith is the most unlikely place of all the available options the PLM would be attached too. Micrometeroid and debris enivornment is a real problem there and considering the PLM is just a modified MPLM, you really don't want to put it in a spot where things are roughest from a MMOD perspective. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Item 1 done this fast - thanks. As for the PLM, I thought ESA was paying to put shielding on it. 68.55.88.108 (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Ugly Tom

Well, I've fixed item 1, and with regards to 2, the reason Pirs isn't on the diagram is that the module isn't part of the final configuration of the ISS - when the MLM is launched Pirs will be jettisoned to free up a docking port for it. Also, wrt item 3, there are 5 ELCs, its just that only four are manifested at present - the fifth will probably hitch a ride on one of the extra missions added following the expected Shuttle extension. Colds7ream (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shuttle is not going to be extended. As a matter of fact, the Augustine Committee in its preliminary meeting with the White House staffers pretty much agreed with them, that only the current schedule up to STS-134 is going to be flown out (even if it is necessary to stretch that to FY2011). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, either way, let's wait till all the decisions are made for sure before we go hastily changing everything? Colds7ream (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, folks might find this interesting: [2]. Colds7ream (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That was before the costings were finalized and before the Aug 14th meeting with the White House staffers. We will have to wait until end of the month, but as far as what I have seen, STS to 2015 is out of the question. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, if anyone's interested: there's a new Augustine article on NSF. Colds7ream (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Permanent MPLM now planned

I've added this to the planned modules table. I however don't know what the particulars of the agreement between ESA and NASA is regarding the Raffaello addition to the ISS so I left the roles (builder/financier/?) blanck for now.--U5K0 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

part of NASA's plan for the International Space Station

Is it just me or is the wording on every single ISS related article implying that NASA is behind the ISS? As far as I know this is an international effort which NASA could not even start before Canada, Japan, Russia and Europe were involved for funding and expertise purposes. The core modules and the Space Station idea are both Russian as well so where is this NASA centrism coming from? Please, for gods sake, this is the first human international effort at space research and travel. KEEP IT NEUTRAL. Jenga3 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for neutrality but it has to be noted that NASA has contributet most of the funding, launch capacity and inorbit volume for the ISS as well as the power system. As a consequence, NASA owns most of the station. Regardless, keep the article neutral and factual.--U5K0 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, things aren't that simple. As a matter of fact half of the station (the Russian half) is not operated by NASA and is used by Russia. 2-3 of the 6 crew spots are permanently available to the Russians. As to "in-orbit volume", interestingly enough the majority of it was designed and built by ESA and ASI. In terms of funding, yes NASA contributed the most. Launch capacity - well, more launches to the ISS were conducted by the Russians than the Space Shuttle. At the end, this really is an international project and I believe the article reflects that - although it isn't clearly saying that the Russian part of it is really just for Russia and means that Russia gets up to about 40-45% of the crew time on the ISS (parts of it they sell to JAXA, ESA and CSA). Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.--U5K0 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've actually been going over the article again and I was wondering if we could work the clarification on the international nature of the ISS above into the text somehow. Any ideas?--U5K0 (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sentence to "Politics and Finances" to reflect the Russian utilisation rights. It's not very prominent there, but I guess there really is no other section for it. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional Tone

Talk about sounding like a NASA brochure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.5 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific with your complaint, please? Colds7ream (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Video tour of the ISS

The current video is from January 2009 and of vry low quality. NASA TV now has an HD tour of the station on youtube from the end of June 2009. Should the current file be replaced by the newer, higher resolution video?--U5K0 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In the process of ripping it off YouTube as we speak. :-) I'll convert the mp4 to ogg and shove it on Commons. Anyone fancy running up a transcript in the meantime? Colds7ream (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the video from the tube of you and converted the resulting mp4 to ogg, but unfortunately its nearly 500MB - suggestions? Colds7ream (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

obsolete

OK folks - we seem to be gathering a fair amount of 'dated' templates around the article - any ideas for some updated sources? In particular need to looking at is the data in the infobox, but this might be useful for the scientific research sections. Colds7ream (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the duration of human presence in space,

"This has provided an uninterrupted human presence in space for the last 8 years, 313 days"

It's been 9 years if it was launched in 2000, roughly 3100 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeitglow (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that line is kept up-to-date automatically by a timed template. Colds7ream (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Information in table on "financier" and "builder" for Node 2 and Node 3 incorrect

Node 2 and Node 3 are built by ASI and ESA and financed by them. They will be operated and owned by NASA. ESA is receiving crew time and other services from NASA in return. It's a barter, not a financing agreement. I would thus suggest to replace "financier" with "operator." Themanwithoutapast (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, and job done. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Strela boom cranes

The article doesn't mention the Strela boom cranes used during the recent spacewalk preparing Zvezda for MRM-2. The cranes have been there awhile.[3] Is there a good source we could incorporate for information about these? When did the components of the cranes arrive? What does "hand operated"? (sdsds - talk) 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I know of a good source for the cranes which were on Mir, that being [4], but pass for the ones on ISS. Colds7ream (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Canadarm2 article has some information on the Strela cranes, but no sources. 88.85.131.154 (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've managed to work in a mention of them in the 'Unpressurised modules' section. Colds7ream (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding "unpressurized and other modules" section

There isn't a good section in the article to include a complete listing of unpressurized parts, like the External_Stowage_Platform(ESP). ESPs are present in the station configuration schematic but not mentioned in the article. Can someone more involved in the article create (or modify) a section and include it ? 81.214.141.97 (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put up a stub section in the 'Space Station' section - feel free to expand it if you so wish! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

peerreviewer script output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 450 yd, use 450 yd, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 450 yd.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), defense (A) (British: defence), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), equaling (A) (British: equalling), grey (B) (American: gray), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, Don't, Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction too long

introduction/summary too long. it should be a short summary of the all work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecoman24 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see MOS:INTRO. Colds7ream (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think that the intro is longish and should be shortened a bit if possible. Offliner (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the current peer review, "I'd expect a summary arrangement to show one paragraph per major section and at least one sentence for each important subsection." - this is the format that I've written up. Before, people were complaining that it was too short, now they're complaining that it's too long. Sorry, but I clearly can't please everybody. :-/ Colds7ream (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The U.K. Flag

Never mind the choice to complain about the variant of English used - why is the Union Jack visible in the logo on the right? Have the British ever been officially involved in the ISS programme? They're not on the map in the article, at any rate, implying they aren't now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.109.244 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:International Space Station/Archive 5#United Kingdom and the ISS. Colds7ream (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cancelled and proposed modules

Two of my recent edits in the cancelled modules section were removed, so I would like to explain the reasoning behind them:

• I removed the Commercial Enterprise Module from the list, because it was never part of the official ISS plan. Enterprise was just a proposal by RKK Energia, but it was rejected by Roscosmos in favor of FGB-2. So, it can not be cancelled - it was just not approved/selected. That's why I added the "proposed, but rejected" sub-section in the proposed modules section on the Assembly article and puted here after the cancelled modules list the sentence: "Conversely there are proposed modules for furthure extension of the ISS." Enterprise is covered in the linked article, as are some other currently proposed and still neighter rejected nor approved modules. Anyway, as Enterprise was never part of the official ISS plan shouldn't we remove it from the list?

• Ah, right - I'll get rid of that. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK; should we put the link to "proposed" section on the main page or the link to Assembly (that contains this section) is enough? Alinor (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• On the CRV line I put "two" and "spacecraftS", because currently there are at any time minimum two Soyuz crafts docked for emergency crew escape. The increase of Soyuz crafts from 1 (3 people) to 2 (6 people)is the real replacement for CRV, not the single Soyuz that was availible from the start. There were some discussions if/how it would be possible to maintain two Soyuz-config at the same time, etc. So, the emphasis on "two" is justified? Alinor (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there aren't always two Soyuz at the station at once - it can be anything from one to three, and the plural of 'spacecraft' is, in fact, 'spacecraft'. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see List of human spaceflights to the ISS and List of ISS spaceflights - since the increase of crew size from 2/3 to 6 person (Expedition 20) there were/will be at minimum 2 Soyuz docked. The third Soyuz comes when one of the other two should be deorbited (in ~6 months periods) and to change crew members. Anyway the function of "crew escape/return" is aways accomplished by a SPECIFIC two crafts - these, where the personal seats of the ISS crewmembers are situated (the visiting people are considered Shuttle or Soyuz crew - sometimes they even exchange seats - when someone will transfer from Shuttle/Soyuz-taxi crew to ISS crew, so that ISS crewmember seats are in the two Soyuz crafts that will stay on the ISS). I think the rule of thumb is that for each 3 persons on ISS Expedition there is one Soyuz craft, so if crew size is 6 there are 2 Soyuz. The number is 3 for a intermediate period of craft change (just as before with 2/3 crew people when changing crafts the number increased from 1 to 2). The number was 1 before crew increase and this was also the situation in the original ISS plan - to have crew of 3 with Soyuz and to increase to 6 when the CRV is ready - so the replacement of the CRV is the 'increase' of Soyuz crafts to two - accomplished with Exp.20. Alinor (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the Soyuz configurations for crews, thanks - the fact of the matter, however, is that the number of Soyuz changes depending on how many crewmembers are aboard at any particular time (if the Expedition is fully crewed or experiencing a handover), and the exact number of spacecraft, one for each set of three crewmembers, is listed in the 'Visiting spacecraft' section. Colds7ream (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I had no intention to insult you. What I mean is that the current sentece "CRV, which would have served as the station's lifeboat, a service now provided by Soyuz spacecraft." just doesn't sound right. A single Soyuz was providing the lifeboat service right from the start, this was the initial plan, etc. - so the single Soyuz has no relation to the CRV. As I said, in the initial plan the CRV was required for the 6 person crew. The change from this into the current situation is that instead of CRV we have currently 'two' Soyuz crafts serving as lifeboats. The handover situation is a different thing - naturally when exchanging the crews/lifeboats there will be more spacecrafts docked (wheter Soyuz or Shuttle) for a intermediate period. Also, as you surely know there are partial handovers with one or two people of the total six only, etc. Why do you insist on not putting one extra "two" there, that I my view will only emphasis the double-lifeboat change? Alinor (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How about that as a compromise? Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, seems fine to me. Alinor (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's an article on the BBC news site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8351163.stm) which talks about extra Russian modules for 2014/2015, and shows a model with these modules. Does anyone have a comment on this? Starfiend (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Showing new proposals with a lot of publicity is a common method by the russian space industry to try and get money out of the pockets of the russian government. Most of it never materializes and some of it isn't even serious. This BBC article is actually pretty good. It has a clear separation between the elements that are actually planned (MIM-2, MIM-1 and MLM), and what is just yet another proposal that needs money. The assessment of the post 2015 situation is also pretty much correct, a lot of plans, a lot of uncertainty. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Radiation

One paragraph says one year at the ISS is equal to 10 years on Earth, the next paragraph says one day at ISS is equal to year on Earth. Please clarify this inconsistency.--Dojarca (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - thanks for the heads-up! Colds7ream (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

List of records/events

I was hoping to see somewhere in the article, or as a seperate article a list of the new records and key new steps that the ISS has taken. The article says that it has the largest number of visitors (although I don't understand the jargon used for this in the article!);most expensive object built; heaviest built object in space- there must be all kinds of other things- surely the largest number of people on a station/space vehicle at one time (13?)- largest number of nations in one project, largest number of nations in one space station, largest number of visiting vehicles, largest number of seperate experiments; brightest man-made object in orbit etc. etc. Will it break longevity records? I have in mind an article which could make it clear in bullet points what makes the ISS special and puts it into some perspective. I would be willing to try and help make it if this suggestion gets some support Colds7ream? Anyone? IceDragon64 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple of things dotted around the article, as you pointed out, and bits scattered throughout the List of spaceflight records and Space station, but I agree, more content on this would be great. I'd be highly supportive of any efforts you'd like to make to rectify that, although I'd suggest you begin it as a section in the spaceflight records list rather than as a stand-alone article. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, thanks- what does anyone else think?

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Hello, I'm just doing a little follow-up from the PR and I found a few minor issues that I thought you'd like to address if you are planning on taking this article through for FAC.

• I was wondering about the following statement:

"When completed, the ISS will consist of fourteen pressurised modules with a combined volume of around 1,000 m³. These modules include laboratories, docking compartments, airlocks, nodes and living quarters. Ten of these components are already in orbit, with the remaining six awaiting launch."

10+6 = 16, which does not equal 14. Also, is this information up to date?

• Could the "Power supply" section make mention of the use of batteries? Otherwise it is unclear (from this article) how the station operates in the Earth's shadow.

• Most of the references maintain pretty good consistency on the author names. However, there are a few that are different. Can these be made to conform?
  • John E, Catchpole
  • Freudenrich, Ph.D., Craig
  • Landis, G & Lu, C-Y
  • Ginzburg, E.; Kuhn, J. W.; Schnee, J.; Yavitz, B.
  • Gebhardt, Chris

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there RJ - thanks very much for having a look through - I am indeed hoping to go for FAC again, just as soon as we get some updated sources for the infobox, so I'm grateful for your input, particularly those couple of edits you made this evening. I've dealt with the module count, and think I've sorted out the author formatting - let me know if I've missed anything. I'll also get to work on adding a mention of the batteries when I get a chance. Colds7ream (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know what a nit-picking exercise a FAC can be, but I think this article is in pretty good shape so you should be able to get it through. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The ISS Communications Systems

There are very serious omissions here.
A simple computer text scan shows that the word "antenna" does not appear in this whole article even once. Also, the word "communication" only appears twice, and in neither case, is it connected with the up-to-date communication systems of the ISS. There is no mention at all of communications by way of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites, nor any mention of satellite communications at all.
A reader of this article would be lead to believe that radio communications back and forth with the crews of the ISS are completely unimportant. However, we who know about such things (master of science in electrical engineering) know that such radio communications are absolutely vital, especially in case of emergencies, for visits to the ISS by the Space Shuttle (rendesvous and docking), and for the return of large amounts of scientific data to the ground on a timely basis. Also, the crews need to receive up-to-date instructions on their scientific experiments. This is all beside the fact that the crew members would like to be able to communicate with their families and close friends.
There needs to be an entire section of this article on the complete electronic communication system of the ISS. Radio communications for the ISS astronauts are not as important as the water they drink, but nearly so.98.67.164.50 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that we need such a section, and I'd invite you, given that you're an expert, to be bold and go ahead and add it! (WP:SOFIXIT) Colds7ream (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I also support the idea too, so try adding something, at least- if you make a start, others will help. Try and focus on anthing which is specific to the ISS, rather than talking too much about space telecomunication in general- Although, of course, if there isn't a page about that, you could write that too, there ought to be! IceDragon64 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's some sources that might be useful: [5][6][7][8] Colds7ream (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also uploaded a diagram of the systems to Commons at File:ISS Communication Systems.png. Colds7ream (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like what we've got here is another case of what I've decided to refer to as 'Drive-by commenting', so I've gone ahead and written up the section myself. Please do have a look and make corrections as you see fit; this isn't my area of expertise and I'd like someone to check its OK. Colds7ream (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Related Discussions

Before we go for FAC4, I'd like to make sure we've tied up absolutely every loose end, so if people could help out in this effort by commenting on these two discussions, I'd be most grateful:

*Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Atlantis docking with Mir

• Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 11#Copyright status of Canadian flag (for ISS)

Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

These two discussions have now been closed, one to deletion and the other to archive. Do please still comment on the RfC though. Colds7ream (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also a discussion ongoing at Talk:Shuttle-Mir Program#RfC: Are NASA publications & websites reliable sources?. Colds7ream (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Minimum staff?

I see we now have only two people aboard. Does anyone know the minimum number of people needed (? maybe none?) on ISS to keep it safe and operable? Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the ISS, like Mir, is fully capable of operating crewless should that be required - however, operating in that manner for a long period of time is inadvisable, as the Soviets discovered with Salyut 7. The whole point of space stations is that the spacecraft keeps the crew alive, and the crew keep the spacecraft alive. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It has 5 crew men[[9]].--86.29.140.109 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

I heard on the BBC back in 2001 that Saudi Arabia was planning to fund part of the ISS. Did they eventuly do this, and if so, how much did they give?--86.29.140.109 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware - any source for that? Colds7ream (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

British English?

Who changed this to British English, and why? First, it was in "unstandardized" (American/Canadian/aerospace) English for, well, ever, as far as I can tell, up until a couple of months ago(?). Second... professionals in the aerospace field use "aerospace English"... British English is hardly a standard in this field, and it's just plain weird to see it here (especially after coming here form Mir, Space Shuttle, or really any other spaceflight related article).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 09:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the extensive discussion at Talk:International Space Station/Archive 7#RfC: British English versus American English for this Article. Colds7ream (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As it doesn't matter, just leave it as it is. Double check the proper names (e.g. Endeavour) though OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It DOES matter. WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear- don't change an article from one to the other without a good reason. --King Öomie 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's a decent-sized thread. --King Öomie 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My point being don't bother arguing about what it used to be and just don't change it from now without good reason. Reading the introduction to ENGVAR makes it quite clear that the style of English used doesn't matter. The other points only come into effect if there is a dispute, which there won't be if you stop caring. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

humm... I don't really want to start a big dust up here, but this situation makes me fairly uncomfortable. If this was a relatively out of the way article then I probably wouldn't worry about it much, but it's a fairly high profile article. I don't think that rewarding misbehavior here is a good idea, especially considering that we would then be forcing the use of a English variation on an article where it's use is really non-standard. If we're hanging this article with British English simply because a prominent proper Noun happens to use a British English variant... Something seems off about that. All I know for sure is that I don't even want to touch this article right now; it feels like a bomb waiting to go off.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 19:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the British English standard is supported by more than one proper noun and goes a good bit further back than a few months so that's not part of the issue at hand. I don't think it's misbehavior here. Keeping it or changing it are both within the wiki guidelines and as the result was inconclusive, keeping it as is as a matter of maintaining civility is really not a problem. I was part of the last mass debate on the subject. It got quite heated as the archive shows. There are plenty of valid points on both sides of the debate and plenty of reasons to worry about rocking the boat again. I see no benefit in re-opening that wound. The only trouble is the large number of US editors resulting in the occasional ping the talk page with a UK vs US section. aremisasling (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not true that the standard stands up to scrutiny, as a simple stroll through the page history makes clear to anyone willing to take the brief time to do so. But whatever, I can see where this is headed already, so I'll just do what I new would unfortunately be required anyway (namely, just ignore the article). I don't understand how or especially why this turned into a nationalistic battleground (which seems especially ironic, given the content), but that unfortunately seems to be reality. I'll just leave it to you folks then, and someone will come along in a few years and fix things. *shrug*
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ISS remaining issues

Just a suggestion in your spare time. Re those two dodgy sources for the Russian stuff. Can you paste the communications section to the ISS article talk page and strikthrough what text would have to be eliminated if you lost those two refs? I ask because I note a couple of the sentences / paras involved have multiple refs, so it isn't always clear what would be in and what would be out. Just an idea to help us think about resolving the sourcing problems. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be:

Radio communications provide telemetry and scientific data links between the station and Mission Control Centres. Radio links are also used during rendezvous and docking procedures and for audio and video communication between crewmembers, flight controllers and family members. As a result, the ISS is equipped with internal and external communication systems used for different purposes.

The first set of communications equipment to be launched was the Russian Regul VHF radio system, which transmits telemetry and other data from the Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) to the Russian Federal Space Agency Mission Control (TsUP) in Moscow via a network of ground receiving stations and the orbiting Luch and Molniya systems via the large Lira antenna mounted to Zvezda. Communications between modules are via analogue copper wire connections.

The US Orbital Segment (USOS), meanwhile, makes use of two separate radio links mounted in the Z1 truss structure: the S band (used for audio) and Ku band (used for audio, video and data) systems. These transmissions are routed via the US Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) in geostationary orbit, allowing for almost continuous real-time communications with NASA's Mission Control Centre (MCC-H) in Houston. The system can also be used to transmit data from the ROS, using a permanent telephone line between MCC-H and the TsUP. Data channels for the Canadarm2, European Columbus laboratory and Japanese Kibō modules are routed via the S band and Ku band systems, although the European Data Relay Satellite System and similar Japanese system will eventually complement the TDRSS in this role. Communications between modules are carried on an internal digital wireless network.

UHF radio is used by astronauts and cosmonauts conducting EVAs, with US spacewalkers linked to the USOS and Russian spacewalkers able to communicate with both the ROS and directly to the TsUP when in range of a ground station, although this system is prone to interference from ground-based radio such as Air Traffic Control transmissions. UHF is employed by other spacecraft docking to or undocking from the station, such as Soyuz, Progress, HTV, ATV and the Space Shuttle (except the shuttle also makes use of the S band and Ku band systems via TDRSS), to receive commands from Mission Control and ISS crewmembers. Automated spacecraft such as the HTV and ATV are fitted with their own communications equipment, with the ATV making use of a laser attached to the spacecraft and a small set of mirrors attached to Zvezda, known as the Proximity Communications Equipment, to accurately dock to the station, and the HTV making its approach assisted by a GPS system mounted to Kibō.

Incidentally, thanks so much for helping out with this. I'm really very grateful. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure there are operational Luch satellites in the orbit at the moment? According to p.81 of Brian Harvey's book, the last Luch satellite ceased functioning in 1998. Luch M was supposed to be launched in 2008, but I'm not sure if this happened. The book may have some other interesting info for this article as well. Offliner (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That would make a fantastic source to replace the 'dodgy' ones, if you wouldn't mind making use of it I'd be very grateful. Colds7ream (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a two-step process for dealing with these russian source problems.

• Step 1:I suggest "The system can also be used to transmit data from the ROS, using a permanent telephone line between MCC-H and the TsUP.[3] " be deleted as outlined. I suggest also that "UHF radio is used by astronauts and cosmonauts conducting EVAs" end with a full stop and "with US spacewalkers linked to the USOS and Russian spacewalkers able to communicate with both the ROS and directly to the TsUP when in range of a ground station, although this system is prone to interference from ground-based radio such as Air Traffic Control transmissions.[6][3]" be deleted.
• Step 2: If Martin's book can be used to imprve the other para with issues, we do so. If not, then it goes too, but leave some time to see what's possible.

Are others okay with that? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, seems fair, hamilton. Colds7ream (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm butting in on the issue of the Luch system. It appears as though Roskosmos does intend to rehabilitate the system. You would need to ask GW Simulations (talk · contribs) for his sources, but in his latest update to 2011 in spaceflight he lists two satellites: Luch 5A & 5B tentatively scheduled for launch in the 1st Quarter and December of that year, onboard Proton-Ms from Baikonur. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

[10], [11] and [12], plus posts on the NASASpaceflight.com forum (the latter probably can't be used as a reliable source). Whilst the dates are not currently in question, there is some confusion over the rockets that will be used. Some sources say Proton-M/Briz-M, some say Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat, and some say one of each. On closer examination more sources seem to point towards 5A on a Proton and 5B on a Soyuz, so I have changed 2011ISF accordingly. It is also possible that both started on Protons but shifted to Soyuz due to delays in establishing dual-launch capacity on Proton (ILS currently advertises "Proton Duo" launches starting in 2012, however that is only available for OSC Star satellites, so this does not apply to Luch). --GW… 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, GW (and thanks for the Support) - now to work out how best to use one of them! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) i don't see sources amongst those that obviously meet reliability criteria; at least one of them tells us nothing about what the new Luch satellites are or what they'll do. Another is written in broken English by some guy in Germany, and likewise doesn't make things entirely clear; the third i'm assuming is Lyngsat advertising its own launch schedule? Hard to tell. And again, nothing on what the purpose of hte satellites is. None of these sources will help with the Luch data for the ISS article. However the Harvey book might give us a little. I'll try and use it now. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

RussianSpaceWeb is maintained by a journalist who has been published by a number of reliable news sources including the BBC. I think that meets the criteria for self-published sources listed at WP:RS. It does say that they are "data relay" satellites, which should be enough. --GW… 09:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Great - I've added in a sentence reflecting the replenishment plans. Colds7ream (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please show me where in this reference is the information to substantiate the suggestion that the 2011 launches are "to restore the operational capability of the system". It would also be useful if someone could post here on the talk page any third party cites that GW refers to, quoting the author of RussianSpaceWeb. Otherwise, we risk getting bogged down in a discussion about whether or not this is a reliable source. Thanks.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What else would they be for? :-S Colds7ream (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See this from the BBC. "Russian aerospace writer and graphic designer Anatoly Zak has produced artist's renderings of the new craft based on a design released by Russian manufacturer RKK Energia at the Farnborough Air Show in the UK last week." and "I think the main roadmap is the agreement between the European and Russian space agencies. That is their Plan A. Anatoly Zak" from a quick search. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To give a few examples, he wrote this article and all three articles linked to under "See also" on that page. --GW… 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This page (in Russian) gives more information about the Luch-5 satellites. I would say that it is a reliable source (Reshetnev is the company which is manufacturing the satellites). --GW… 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you GW, that is helpful. To answer Colds7ream's query, in the context of this WP article, "to restore the operational capability of the system" will be taken to mean that the purpose of sending up Luch 5A and B is to restore the Russian system's ability to communicate with ISS. An alternative reason for the Luch satellites could be to perform space communication tasks for Russia completely unrelated to ISS. It is the link to ISS operations that concerned me. However, i'm happy to live with the wording as is. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to this issue

The paragraph that begins "The first set of communications equipment to be launched was the Russian Regul..." is currently a candidate for deletion because of its use of potentially unreliable sources. One possibility for improving it is the use of new sources such as the Martin book. However, I note the end of that paragraph also cites a reliable source, Harland's book The Story of Space Station Mir. Does anyone have access to that book to tell exactly what in the current version of the para does not use that book as the source? Because we can keep anything that relies on Harland in my view. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Harland details the general use of Regul on Mir only - it being the same device, the book supports what its used for, but nothing ISS-specific. However, the fact that Zarya was launched first supports the assertation that the Russian system was the first to hit orbit. Colds7ream (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see that that is not really enough to go on for this para. I'll try and come back to this tomorrow. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've tackled this now. The books mentioned raise a query about the status of Luch, but we're about verifiability not truth. We have a reliable source (the reference guide to ISS) that Luch satellites are in use. I've stuck to that. Most other detail about russian systems is gone, sorry, it just couldn't be found elsewhere than in the questionable sources. There is one fact left without a reference. It should be simple to cite, but i don't have the time now, and the wikilinked article is no help. It is this: that the Lira antenna is mounted to Zvezda. If someone can just find something that says so, i think we are done and dusted. hamiltonstone (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for this, Hamilton - the Lira system is described in the ISS Reference Guide (its visible in the comms section image), so that's cited that way, but its also menationed at [13] if you fancy an extra source. I've also put a message on GW's talk page about his Luch sources, so hopefully we'll be able to support that with an extra citation when he gets back to us. Looks good as is now, we can add things back as and when Offliner can employ his book to support them, or we find another source instead. I think this just about wraps things up! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lira is named on the diagram to which you refer, but nothing in that picture shows that it is an antenna, a dish, or what; nor does it show to what part of the station it is attached. One cannot tell from that diagram what Lira is. I will use that alternative reference to deal with this. I finally found the information that goes with that asterisk on the ISS communications diagram: it is "Luch not currently in use". Pretty important. I'm going to amend the article text again. Whether those books are of any further help, who knows. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kind of funny with the asterisk, no? :) One would have expected them to place the info in a clearly visible spot. As for Harvey's book, it cannot be used to source the strickened sentences above as there isn't too much info about communications equipment. Offliner (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

This article is now getting some great copyediting. One thing though - the desire to remove any word ending in -ing went a bit too far in a few spots, and in others seems to have been a style change without any grammatical change or improvement in readability. In a few cases where i thought it reduced readability or actually made an unintended change in meaning, i have reverted or further copyedited. But I'm delighted to see the attention the article has received, and thank you to all who have undertaken the work. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was worried about that. Will stop now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. You have done a good job and if you see more cases, go ahead and change - other editors will check them out. I left 90 per cent of the recent "-ing" removals intact as valuable improvements. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing saga of how to write with or without -ing

Some recent edits have continued to tinker with the grammar of various sentences, some re-instating expressions that included words ending in -ing. Some are fine, but one appears to have created an issue. Since it already appears to be a revert of an earlier copyedit, i thought i'd raise it here before tinkering:

• previous: "The assembly continues, with pressurised modules, external trusses and other components being launched by..."
• current: "Assembly has been ongoing ever since, and pressurised modules, external trusses and other components are still being launched by..."

I do not understand what was wrong with the previous version which reads accurately and smoothly to me but, granting there is an issue (whatever that might be), "ongoing ever since" is a clanging redundancy. It should at the very least read "Assembly is ongoing, with pressurised modules, external trusses and other components still being launched by..."
Would other editors be happy with this compromise? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, go ahead and implement - this sentence just doesn't seem to want to sit nicely on the tongue, but your version is nevertheless an improvement. Colds7ream (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely on the "clanging redundancy", but what's wrong with "and pressurised modules, external trusses and other components still being launched by..."? I don't get the usage of "with", with what? Surely "and" is the better conjunction here. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the most recent version Graham Colm added to the article that eliminates the "ongoing". FWIW, "ongoing" is idiomatic, so it's best to avoid if possible. Actually, I'll have to look in history, but I might be responsible for the first version above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get any of this. First, to my mind "with" is better than "and", because "and" implies, well, something additional. I am familiar with "with" being used to describe the nature of the thing previously outlined. "Assembly continues, with this and that being done"; "The race was close, with A and B only a second apart", etc etc. Second, what do you mean 'ongoing' is "idiomatic"? Like you, I prefer(ed) something else such as "continues", but I don't actually see an issue with "ongoing". That just strikes me as standard contemporary English.

Anyway, for those who can't come at "with", what about:

• "Assembly continues, as pressurised modules, external trusses and other components are launched by..." - which has the added virtue of being even more concise? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Strike idiomatic then, and substitute WP:Engvar maybe? It's not a word I use, but am certainly very familiar with it. The synonym is "continuing". As for "with" vs. "and", in the sentence above I might lean toward "with" to avoid having two "and"s so close together. Truly at this point, we're all suffering a bad case of "gerunditis" or "noun plus-ing-itis"! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like that, Hamilton - much better! :-) I went ahead and implemented. Colds7ream (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Template

The template User:Colds7ream/Ageand needs to be moved to Template space. Articles should never be pointing to userspace. Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Colds7ream (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WE DID IT!!! :-D

SURVEY THE MAGNIFICENCE!!! :-D Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/January_2010

• Congratulations. On the subject, could somebody have a look at List of ISS spacewalks, which is currently a featured list but seems to have fallen into disrepair over the last six months. EVAs aren't really my thing, so if someone else could sort it out that would be appreciated. Thanks. --GW… 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oooh dear, it is a bit out of date, isn't it? :-S Colds7ream (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tried to keep the EVA table up to date at 2009 in spaceflight, I'll see if I can do something, but I could use help with referencing over there since every addition to the Featured List should be properly referenced. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, you've convinced me and I just got done with a massive update but the stats in the list need to be updated and all of my additions still need references. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• It appears as though the user who had been maintaining that list: ArielGold (talk · contribs) has gone inactive from November due to a move and has not edited since. It looks as though we we need to step in to maintain the list unless we would like to see it loose featured status for a second time. Yes, that's right, Ariel brought the list up to FL after it had been demoted before for going into disrepair. This will become all the more glaring in a few days when the first EVA of the year occurs. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The altitude plot

looks awful. If anyone can find a link of the data, then I would redraw the plot. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The plot was done by NASA. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/station/images/issalt.gif I'm not aware of any published altitude statistics in raw data by reliable sources. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well then there is nothing we can do. I was googling for "ISS altitude" and there was a link to a excel spreadsheet but it was dead... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 12:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ECLSS Merge

Hey folks, I've just created a standalone article on the ECLSS at ISS ECLSS, and have proposed that several smaller articles be merged into it; you can see my proposal at Talk:ISS ECLSS#Merge proposal. Please take a look and comment on my suggestions! Colds7ream (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ISS in popular culture

I was thinking about adding an 'In popular culture-section' since the ISS was featured in Modern Warfare 2 (a warhead detonates in the upper atmosphere, which destroys the International Space Station) DavidHøstbo (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I play video games almost compulsively, but I think that mentioning whether it blew up in some military FPSes—when considering the stuff that actually goes on politically, financially, and scientifically in the ISS—seems horribly trivial. Other users may support that sort of section and disagree with me there, but I think perspective and proper weight are needed.

Even the trivial stuff already in the article (except maybe the COLBERT mention) seems more important. Such sections just invite listiness (see also proseline) and clutter, and would just tempt every Joe Webcomic to mention the ISS and disguise their PayPal tip jarsstrips as "citations".

Does such an appearance in the game impact the ISS operations? Did people hear that the ISS would be in MW2 and decide "maybe I should buy this despite the whole civilian massacre thing"? The gamer in me doesn't give a fuck if it's mentioned in the article; the Wikipedian in me doubts it's really relevant enough. --an odd name 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh gosh, please no; the article's long enough already without a load of 'in popular culture' clutter... :-( Colds7ream (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The modern warefare game can link to ISS, and I think then the issue is mentioned more than enough. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up for the responses.DavidHøstbo (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please keep it out, there has been a recent epidemic of adding the appearances of anything in that game to articles here on wikipedia, most (if not all) of which fail the requirements of WP:MILPOP for military items and weapons, which doesn't really apply to this article. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

10 years

Belated congratulations to everyone who worked on this excellent article. This is quite timely as the 10-year anniversary of human presence on the ISS is coming up in November. I would highly recommend that this article be featured on the main page then. I know it's quite early, but this is to bring the option on the radar for regular contributors. Arsonal (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I had in mind. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Two wikipedia articles contradicting themselves

Two wikipedia articles contradicting themselves:

A) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#Costs "The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 100 billion dollars"

B) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_most_expensive_objects "International Space Station : 157 billion"

Which one is correct? I guess that article A might be a bit out-dated?

193.62.202.241 (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks for the heads-up. Colds7ream (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Scientific research expansion and criticism rewrite

I think that this section of the article needs to be expanded a lot. There is plenty of information about the research being carried out on station by NASA, CSA and ESA (links below). There may be more info on russian and japanese experiments but I only understand english and think that the american, canadian and european data will be enough to get started. If someone wants to get started right away, here are the links(nasa science by topicesa science by date (also includes nonISS experiments)more esa stuffCSA science (center bottom of the page)) otherwise I'll do the work over the summer.--U5K0 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the Criticism section could use more response to criticism material, but I'm staying away from that since I'm a die hard supporter of the ISS. Anyone here neutral on the topic?--U5K0 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go for the expansion of the section if you'd like; frankly, after two years, I'm fed up of looking at this article's code. :-) Also, I'm a big fan too, so you'll need to find someone else to do the controversy thing. Colds7ream (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, are you actively trying to get the article delisted with the notice templates? We only just got the thing to FA! :-( Colds7ream (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, nothing like that. I didn't know I was out of line. Sorry. I've removed the NPOV thing. You can take down the expand thing if you think it's a bad idea. --U5K0 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this recently; we've got a lot more content on the criticism in the International Space Station programme article - the section here is supposed to be a brief overview, as the article is supposed to be about the spacecraft itself and its operation, not the politics or research conducted aboard. As such, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to put an expanded science section in the programme article too, as opposed to in here, if only for reasons of article length? Colds7ream (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. My thought on the matter is that then it may make sense to move the 'Purpose' section in the existing article into the 'Politics, utilisation and financing' section and rename it into 'International Space Station program' for easier navigation. At the moment many people probubly don't even know that the ISS program article even exists. Anyway, just to make my motivations clear, the reason I added the expand tag in the science section is because I had been under the impression that almost no science has been done on the ISS yet. And I just found out recently that this couldn't be further from the truth. Nasa has a great index of a lot of experiments on their site, esa has a less great one and csa has a collection of articles, but most people don't see that information so I wanted to make it available. Let's face it, for most people Wikipedia is gospel and I don't think taht the current state of the science section does the program justice. --U5K0 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I added external links to the science on ISS, before noticing this talk. There should probably be a subtopic for every participating entity. I can do some copy and pasting from agencies sites, but would appreciate some assistance, since i'am new around here. —ThorX 22:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorX13 (talk • contribs)

fuel storage

did the iss store the fuel n give that fuel to the other space crafts when ever they need the fuel.......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.61.207 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuel is stored mostly in Zarya, and some in Zvezda, delivered by Progress resupply ships or ATVs. The fuel can be transferred back to spacecraft docked to the station, but in practise is very rarely done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific research article needed?

With the current editing spree going on in the scientific research section, User:TheDJ and I thought it might be a good idea to split off a new article specific to the research conducted aboard the station. I'd like to gauge opinion on this, on a few points:

1. Does the section need expansion in the main ISS article, or is it OK as it was on FAC4?
2. Should the expanded version sit in a new article or in the International Space Station program article that already exists?
3. If its a new article that we go for, what should it be entitled?

Debate away, people! My own personal opinion is that the section in the existing article is OK as it is, and that the expanded version could happily slot into the existing ISS programme article, as I suggested in the 'Scientific research expansion and criticism rewrite' discussion above. Colds7ream (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the section is a little long. I think an article dedicated to the science on the station is a good idea. I think the new article could also include science info from Skylab, Salyut and Mir, and could be entitled something like "International Space Sciences" or something like that. Then a brief overview could be included in the ISS article with a link to the new science article section on the ISS experiments. This could also be done for the other space stations.--NavyBlue84 16:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think having an independent article for ISS science activities would be the simplest solution especially since this is a topic which is set to expand significantly in the years to come. Having said that, I won't be able to do any major work on this or anything else until July so if someone wants to do it in a different way you won't get any objections from me.--U5K0 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I did it because before i coudn't find the data i was looking for, and now i can. What's the macro for the signature, btw ? 4 tildes do this: ThorX 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorX13 (talk • contribs)

This probably shows, i solved the signature problem .. ThorX (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's also a signature button above your edit window.--U5K0 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hope I'm not overstepping by cpying all the science stuff into a new article Research and Science on the International Space Station and proposing that work on it continue primarily there. I think that the main ISS article cannot possibly contain a full account of the ISS scientific activities and since this is Featured content it may be more apropriate to update the prose here once the new article is in decent condition. As always, I may be totally wrong.--U5K0 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. Nicely done! Colds7ream (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Image in the page auto description

First image i get from this page is the one from Science and Research, which is not exactly representative to the topic. I wonder, could it be possible, without too much pain to make it happen ? I'm talking about the add-on, which shows you preview of Wiki pages under mouse, when it's above a link, don't know if link to add-ons works ?--ThorX (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proper Noun "Shuttle–Mir Program"

I understand that this article is written in British English, however according to Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English, proper names should be written in their original spelling.

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; color and colour; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are as follows:

• proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

NASA refers to it as the 'Shuttle–Mir Program' as seen here [14]. It is also a purely American-Russian program. Even the British Media refers to it as such [15]

I will correct the spelling of this proper name on April 10, 2010 if there is no objection.Aalox (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Corrected spelling. I also took the liberty of changing 1 mention of The Apollo ProgramAalox (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving International_Space_Station#Station_operations to International Space Station program

I feel this section can be moved over the International Space Station program, particularly the Mission control centres section, as it deals with ground (program) operations.

Also, the International_Space_Station#Politics.2C_utilization_and_financing section is basically a copy of the International Space Station program article. We should shorten it and make it more of a summary instead of a copy.

I will go about moving and creating summaries on April 10, 2010 if there is no objection.Aalox (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The MCCs definitely belong here AND on the programme article - they are to do with the operation of the ISS as a spacecraft, which is the focus of this article. The programme article is supposed to be regarding its utilisation as a laboratory, and its operation as a governmental project. As for the politics, utilisation & financing section, that was the minimum we needed to cover things for FA status. The answer is not to shorten this section, but to expand the programme article. Colds7ream (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was suggesting the move as I recall the ISS article having problems with being to long. (When I go to edit it, I see "This page is 129 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article_size.") I was thinking we would be able to break it up into ISS the object (This article) and ISS operations and program. If size is not a problem, then I agree with you Colds7ream. Either way I will be adding MCCs etc to the program article, and showing it some love this weekend.Aalox (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a long article, but is now nice and stable at its current length. The split you describe is indeed ideal, and is, I think, what we have already - but, with any spacecraft, something should be mentioned about its ground control, IMHO. Colds7ream (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that something should be mentioned about its ground control, I was just thinking it could be summerized more after moving the details over to International Space Station program. I'll fiddle around with it in a sandbox this weekend and let you take a look at it and see how you like it. Aalox (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I copied over the section to International Space Station program and started minor expansions to it. It is a lot hard then I expected to source information that I've learn simply by watching NASA TV broadcasts on the Station. Is it possible to source those? I'm not going to mess with the version over here as I'm fear messing up Feature Article Status.Aalox (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orbit control question

I recently listened to the second audio file attached to this BBC article. The thing that got my interest is where it's said that the ISS has been maintaining a lower orbit than otherwise optimal because of the limited shuttle capacity. Should this be included in the article?--U5K0 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Its not solely because of the space shuttle. There are many other reasons such as orbital debris and radiation. The shuttle can fly much higher then the current 220 mile orbit of the station. It reached 385 miles for STS-31. I don't think it is necessary to put that in the article.--NavyBlue84 02:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

British English

Why is it written in it? The ISS is mainly a NASA/Roscosmos project, and the server that hosts this page is most likely in the US so what justification is there for this article to be in British English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed here Talk:International_Space_Station/Archive_7#RfC:_British_English_versus_American_English_for_this_Article. Basically, someone wrote "kilometre" as opposed to "kilometer" in the early stages of this article, and hence has been claimed as a British Article. Dispite repeated attempts to change this, enough people vote to keep it British, and so No Consensus is created, so it remains status quo as British English. Feel free to weigh in on the discussion above with the debate on the name "International Space Station Program" vs "International Space Station Programme" Talk:International_Space_Station#Proper_Noun_.22International_Space_Station_Program.22. Aalox (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

International_Space_Station#End_of_mission_and_deorbit_plans Neutral Point of View

This section feels like it might have a Neutral Point of View issue. Reading it, I have the impression that big bad Bush ordered that the station be destroyed in 2015 and the great savior Obama came and rescued it. I was under the impression that this was a simple mater of funding being allocated until 2015 with no official funding provided past that date, but with the working assumption that when the time comes, the money will be there to keep the station running until 2020 or beyond. What do you think? Aalox (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this section misses a few points. 1 The original lifespan was 2015 (for all agencies), that means also original planned funding was until 2015. Due to the many delays in the project (it was supposed to be finished in 2003 when those budgets were drawn), many parties wanted to expand operating life of the ISS (if safe). Then Bush came in and determined that the 2015 date would stand because he wanted to free the money for the Constellation program. Note that this isn't a budget, it is a multiyear plan. Actual budgets are only made for the coming year. Obama crossed out Constellation and stated that more focus had to be put on maximizing existing LEO research opportunities (so ISS) while preparing a new fundamental plan for beyond the moon, using commercial systems for LEO access. This story isn't really coming across in the current section I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

End of mission and deorbit plans

Why is this section written in a manner which gives impression that USA solely makes decision of a "End of mission and de-orbit plans" ?

The only "reference" about this is anyway some article in Washington Post.

Just to remind writer of this section of article International Space Station is owned and governed by multiple countries, so it is not solely upon USA to decide if they are going to de-obrit ISS or not.

If I don't receive proper answer why is this section written in such biased way I am going to delete that section of article as I found it very misleading and offensive to other countries who owns and govern ISS.

Largely because "NASA has the responsibility to deorbit the ISS", as stated in the article. In addition, this section has nine citations, not one. Any attempts to remove the section will be reverted. By the way, when you post a message on a talk page, please sign it. Colds7ream (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper Noun "International Space Station Program"

I understand that this article is written in British English, however according to Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English, proper names should be written in their original spelling.

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; color and colour; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are as follows:

• proper names (use the original spelling, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force);

Both English speaking partners use the name "International Space Station Program" as shown below.

Organization	Link	Quote
Both English speaking partners use the name "International Space Station Program" as shown below
NASA	[16]	NASA's International Space Station Program Wins Collier Trophy WASHINGTON - NASA's International Space Station Program has won the 2009 Collier Trophy, which is considered the top award in aviation. The National Aeronautic Association in Washington bestows the award annually to recognize the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America.
	[17]	The International Space Station Program has received the 2010 Aviation Week Space Laureate Award. This year’s winners were recognized for extraordinary accomplishments in the aerospace and defense industries.
	[[18]]	National Aeronautics and Space Administration International Space Station Program Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas Contract No. NAS8-50000 (DR SE44)
CSA	[19]	On March 17, 2010, representatives from each of the five partners in the International Space Station Program were presented with Aviation Week's Laureate Award in the Space category.
As well as two of the three non-English speaking. The do use lower case, but this might be expected from non-native english speakers.
JAXA	[20]	Its responsibilities involve technical coordination, liaison with the United States on the International Space Station program, and public relations.
ROSCOSMOS	[21]	Within the same period, it is also necessary to maintain carrying out the space experiments with human involvement, in order to expedite validation of new- generation space technologies, to study processes` physics and to arrange: production of the materials and biopharmaceuticals which possess the features unachievable on the ground, development of the technologies and engineering equipment to support human missions to the planets in the Solar system, as well as accomplishment of the international commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation under the International Space Station program.
ESA, has used both Programme and Program, however I believe that 'Programme' has been used only in error. In this article, written entirely in British english, they still use 'International Space Station Program' dispite using 'programme' everywhere else. ESA is also a non-English speaking member, as Britian has refused to contibute to the International Space Station Program, it's English text will be influenced by it's British counter parts in other ESA Programs.
ESA	[22]	During the 18 missions so far with European astronaut participation, medical office personnel have provided support from NASA and Russian mission control centres in a consultant or ‘second seat’ capacity. The ISS medical support programme will significantly change the scope and responsibilities for the medical office and its staff. The variety of tasks described above clearly shows that more than medical doctors are required for the medical support activities: biomedical engineers, information technology specialists, nurses and other medical support personnel. Multilateral medical cooperation Medical requirements and their implementation will be developed and agreed for formal input into the International Space Station Program (ISSP) office by a multilateral medical management structure.
Recently, the heads of the International Space Station (ISS) agencies from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia, and the United States met in Tokyo, Japan, on March 11, 2010 and released a Joint Statement on the International Space Station
JOINT	[23]	In looking ahead, the heads of agency discussed the importance of increasing ISS utilization and operational efficiency by all possible means, including finding and coordinating efficiencies across the ISS Program and assuring the most effective use of essential capabilities, such as space transportation for crew and cargo, for the life of the program.

I will correct the spelling of this proper name on April 10, 2010 if there is no objection. Aalox (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It's the programme that runs the ISS - I fail to see how that's a proper noun. Colds7ream (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In most of souces above, the entire name is written in caps, "International Space Station Program (ISSP)" looks like a proper name to me. Aalox (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The only two in which this is not true are the non-english speaking partners.Aalox (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the ISS Program is a specific enitiy with specific personal and specific program managers

ISS program managers Pierre Jean, Canadian Space Agency; Bernardo Patti, European Space Agency; Yoshiyuki Hasegawa, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency; Alexey Krasnov, Roscosmos; and Michael Suffredini of NASA. [24]

"ISS program". There's no consistency, so we can presume that its not a proper noun. They're very pernickety about that. Plus, and I hate to say this, why bother? It's not like people can't read it in its current form, and the ridiculously picky FAC reviewers would certainly have complained if that were the case... Colds7ream (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Space Shuttle program too. Colds7ream (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because someone wrote out your name james humphreys, Jim, Jimmy etc, can I presume that James Humphreys is not a proper noun? I'm not saying that we need to change every short handed "ISS programme" to "ISS Program", my problem is when it is writen out in full, particularly with

Main article: International Space Station programme

. If you truely feel it shouldn't be bothered with, then don't bother with opposing the correction. (PS, It pains me to disagree with you Colds7ream as I have termendous respect for you).Aalox (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just leave it be, then. The article passed FAC in this state, and that's the ultimate gauntlet it can pass, MoS-wise. There's no need to fiddle. Colds7ream (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your sense of ownership over this article, and you have done an amazing job with it. At the same time, just because people say its good and no one has brought it up before, doesn't mean it is prefect and can never be touched again. I think to say, "Thats the way it's always been, so keep it that way" is a bit foolish. If everyone always thought that way, we wouldn't have an International Space Station Program to debate the name about. Also, don't forget "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."Aalox (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wanting to violate WP:OWN, and am very careful not to do so - so will happily accept the changes if you can form a consensus. Colds7ream (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Given the article's relevance I see no reason to keep the article in British English besides the fact it being initially written in it, which I don't believe is enough justification.--Craigboy (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note- I am not attempting to open the can of worms that is the British English / American English / What IS International English. I would like to restrict this to just the name of the program.Aalox (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only three of the sources use upper case. The first of those is the NASA one, which seems to lack credibility since it implies the ISS is a NASA programme, not an international one. That leaves two references, which are contradicted by three of the remaining sources, since a lack of capitalisation implies that they do not believe it is a proper noun. --GW… 07:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to completely ignore this ESA article? [25] In this article, written entirely in British english, they still use 'International Space Station program' dispite using 'programme' everywhere else. Also, how does the the NASA site lack credibility? It is a US Government Website. You can't imply that they do not believe it is a proper noun for fear of WP:OR. See above, just because someone wrote a name as 'james humphreys, Jim, Jimmy etc, you can't imply that James Humphreys is not a proper name. The fact of the matter remains that 4 of 5 organizations call it a 'Program' and ESA only calls it 'Programme' every now and then, and has used 'Program' in a british english article.Aalox (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, the two organizations that use lower case 'program' are non-native english speaking organizations. Are you really going to base an arugment on that?Aalox (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support All arugments against correcting the name to International Space Station Program are using WP:Original Research to imply that non-english speaking counties do not beleive it is a proper noun, and seem to mostly be based on a proceived WP:Ownership of the article. Aalox (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't really care about issues like this, but I note that space agencies (and the tech industry in general) have a capitalization and acronym fetish. That doesn't mean we have to follow them in that. I consider this to be just a program regarding the International Space Station. Others will say it is THE "International Space Station Program". Personally, I think that you can only call something a ... Program if you refer specifically to one agency's document about such a project, but since this is an international collaboration, made out in acts, laws and treaties and the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement, I don't think it is really appropriate to use a capital here. It is not 1 thing, it is a collaborative effort and not a single person can say where the work under "..Program" starts and ends. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is easy to say where work under the program starts and ends. Each Space agency has a identifable and and cohesive International Space Station Program, with a person identified as that agency's program manger etc. The Acts, laws, treaties and Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement serve to dictate how these 5 sub-programs work together as one coheasive International Program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalox (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even in that case, it should be named International Space Station programs. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Programs or Program. The fact remains, it is Not called programme. (Side Note, see CSA quote above "On March 17, 2010, representatives from each of the five partners in the International Space Station Program" Programs isn't used. Aalox (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I do not have strong feelings about these points, as I think there is really no "right" or "wrong" way, but I do tend to think the spelling "program" is more appropriate here, when specifically denoting the US or international programs for the ISS. Counting references is not very helpful, because there are going to be thousands both ways, and weeding through which to count and which to discount seems like an endlessly tedious exercise that will never come to a definitive result. It is obvious to me that there must be redirects so that any reasonable spelling, misspelling, or capitalization comes to this article, so that's surely not in dispute. What does sway me is that as a foundational issue (ie, who has led the effort historically), a management issue, and a funding issue (who pays for it), it is pretty heavily American, particularly among the English-speaking participants. The UK in particular has essentially no role. I suppose we agree (and there are WP policies) that British spelling should be used for articles about British topics, American spelling for articles about US topics, that for topics not clearly identifiable either can be used, but that the spelling should be consistent within an article; and of course sometimes one must "break the rules". For this particular instance, I think the dominant US role among the English-speaking partners (not to discount Canada) tilts the case towards American spelling. As for capitalization, I think there is a good case that "International Space Station Program" is a proper noun, as is "International Space Station" (? I am guessing there is no support to re-title the article "International space station", although that too is a valid redirect.) Finally, given that we have substantial editorial involvement here from both sides of The Pond, I will be surprised if we ever reach consensus—which seems likely to decide the case to keeping the status quo. Wwheaton (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• I think the discussion is straying away from the issue. I think it would be best to avoid reopening the issue of dialects because it was discussed extensively last year, and detracts from the real issue here, of whether "International Space Station (p/P)rogram(me)" is a proper noun or not. Having looked into it further, I think the NASA source I criticised earlier is probably referring to a NASA office responsible for overseeing the programme, rather than the programme itself. --GW… 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Could avoid the issue entirely by using "project" in place of "program" or "programme". (sdsds - talk) 06:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Renaming the article "International Space Station" will fix some problems but than the rest of the article will still be written in British English. Some one brought up international english, does anyone have a link to an international english dictionary?--Craigboy (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - International Space Station Program refers to the NASA program managed by the Johnson Space Center, and it should be capitalized because it is a proper noun. Otherwise, the International Space Station is what it is - no need to add "program" to it.

Living volume?

Is it me or does the ISS look a lot roomier than the Mir? Even though according to wikipedia the ISS han only 6% more living volum than the mir.

I've looked it up and there's a few different numbersout there. One is indeed 350m^3. Thus figure appears only in one ESA article as far as I can tell: The total pressurised volume of the ISS is now 820 cubic metres ... Up to 350 cubic metres of this is habitable... The article is from February 2010.

The original numbers, before the cancelation of a number of modules was cca. 1200m^3. These are still on the CSA and Boeing websites.

NASA, however has a couple of documents from 2007 which have this data: internal pressurized volume of 935 cubic meters (33,023 cubic feet). This seems to include the russian research module and docking compartment but do not include the russian MRM-1 and 2 as well as the Ppressurised Multipurpuse Module. I think that this figure is probubly in the right area.

There is however the question of what is the habitable volume and what is the living volume and what is the pressurised volume.--U5K0 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Pressurized volume is everything inside the external shells. Habitable/living volume is the space that astronauts can float around in (excludes cupboards and cabinets). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So do we leave the 350 figure in the article or change it to 820 or 935? I can't be sure about this but I seriously doubt that Mir had 300m^3 living volume as you define it. Anyway... what do we do with this information?--U5K0 (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Acording to PBS [here] the total pressurised volume of Mir was 380m^3. I think it would make a lot of sense if we just changed the information to pressurised volume since that is the information available for both stations. I also can't find a source for the 350m^3 living volume that is currently in the mir infobox.--U5K0 (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(Also, the Salyut stations seem to have pressurised volume information under the living volume section from what I can tell.--U5K0 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Research article rename

I would be grateful if everyone could head over to Talk:Research and Science on the International Space Station#Proposed article rename and put in their twopennethworth on the subject. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Italian modules

• Harmony Node 2: Under contract of the Italian Space Agency, Alenia Spazio in Turin, Italy, led a consortium of European sub-contractors to build the node. [26]
• Tranquillity Node 3: Tranquility was built for NASA by Thales Alenia Space in Turin, Italy, under contract to the European Space Agency. [27]
• Cupola: Developed and built by Thales Alenia Space in Italy, Cupola is [...]. [28]
• Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules (Leonardo): Construction of the Leonardo module began in April 1996 at the Alenia Aerospazio factory in Turin, Italy. [29]

--87.16.221.34 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Node 2 was built by ESA for NASA, as was Node 3 and Cupola.--U5K0 (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the first page you linked says that Alcatel-Alenia Space is the prime contractor for Node 2 and the responsibility for development was assigned to the Italian space agency, ASI. In other links there is nothing about builders and developers for Node 3 and Cupola. Can you point out the paragraphs? However, I think that NASA's website is reliable. [30][31]--87.16.221.34 (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Node 2: ...Node 2 was developed for NASA under an ESA contract with European industry...
• Node 3 at nasa: ...Tranquility was built for NASA by Thales Alenia Space in Turin, Italy, under contract to the European Space Agency. The module was part of ESA's barter agreement for which NASA delivered the Columbus laboratory to the station...
• Cupola: ...The Cupola is provided by ESA to NASA in exchange for the transport of 5 external payloads...

--U5K0 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And then? In the article is written that ESA is the builder of Node 2, Node 3 and Cupola, but - as you confirm - these modules was built and developed by Alenia Space. At this point, I suggest to write: Italy (Builder), Europe (Contractor) and, where necessary, USA (Operator). It is incredible that in a featured article there are errors so coarse and there is any reference to the huge Italian contribution to the station.--87.16.221.34 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

These 3 modules were financed by ESA and the work was simply done by an italian company because Italy is a part of ESA ISS activity. I see no reason to single out the location of where the hardware was made and the subcontractors of the agency responsible for delivery. The modules were not built as part of an independent effort by ASI nor was their construction started by Italy. ASI was only a contractor for a job which ESA had to get done. Could a third party jump in here to let me know if I'm completely insane please?--U5K0 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with U5K0 - it's not like we list Boeing as the builder of Destiny or Unity, is it? Colds7ream (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am also in agreement with U5K0. These modules were ESA products, as it were, that basically happened to be built in Italy. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't list Boeing either. This information can be detailed in the articles of the individual modules however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

@TorriTorri. "Basically happened to be built in Italy"?! These are not ESA products, but are Italian technologies developed and built by Italian industries in Italy. ESA and NASA are just financiers or operators.

@TheDJ. In my opinion, the lack of references (not only in this table) to the Italian contribution to the station is very serious, since it's a featured article and should be exhaustive.

Bye.--87.10.23.57 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

IP user is right. Italy is the third country for contribution to station, after United States and Russia. Why was not written? --87.11.234.173 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Research and Criticism Section

I looked at some of the information in this section, and many of the sources cited are not credible in and of themselves, and some do not even attempt to explain how they came up with their criticism. In addition, several of the criticisms are either false (i.e. saying that research that uses specialized equipment cannot be conducted) or not necessarily valid (i.e. comparing the microgravity environment achievable in an aircraft with the one on the ISS). Overall, this section appears to originate from a very uninformed standpoint. We should review this section and provide a more accurate and balanced discussion of the criticisms. I'm sure there are better ones than those shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.205.76.138 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up before and the thing is that all of us seem to be too biased in favour of the ISS to be comfortable with changing that section.--U5K0 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of looking around and was able to find a few sites with information on benefits from ISS science.

• [32]
• [33]
• [34] has links to spinoff sites with hardware in use today

--U5K0 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

After some thought I realised that this criticism section really bugs me. It strikes me as a rag-tag collection of facts which give a somewhat confusing picture. Personally I think it needs to be redone in a way that looses the general criticism of governemnt funded space exploration and human spaceflight. The criticism, I think, should be about the ISS specifically. The response to the criticism should be under its own header. Thoughts anyone? --U5K0 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Higher Orbit

The BBC has a page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618239.stm) which says the next ESA ATV will push the ISS into a higher orbit and includes the words. "ATV will push the ISS higher into the sky once the shuttle's height limitations no longer matter". No figures are given. Presumably this higher orbit will reduce atmospheric drag and allow less freqent orbital maintenance operations.

Any details on this? Soarhead77 (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is still only speculation. The higher you go, the increased debris risk and radiation risks. Plus shuttle can fly up to about 350 miles (Hubble altitude). The station will probably move up some in orbit but probably not as much as they are saying. The orbital drag isn't very much right now, and moving it do to that won't make much difference. Moving it to a higher orbit probably won't reduce manuvers, since they will probably have to deal with more space junk.--NavyBlue84 13:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the graph in the article, International_Space_Station#Orbit_control, the space station has been at 400km height multiple times. It was brought to a lower orbit to optimize the upmass capacity of the space shuttle. It is easier to bring a lot of mass to a low orbit than to a high orbit. The shuttle can in theory go up to 960km or something, but that has a lot of constraints on the type of mission that it can fly in that case. Since the shuttle won't be flying with it's massive payloads anymore, the station is in a process to being lifted a bit higher again, which should be a bit more efficient, and will also give it more safety margin, in case the resupply program is suspended for some reason (think exploding soyuz rocket, which will require an investigation of a few months, in which the progress cannot fly and the station thus will have more trouble being reboosted). I don't think that it is logical that the ISS will be boosted beyond 400km, though 450km is probably a theoretical possibility. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

Hey folks, just to let you all know that I'll be putting a request in for the article to be placed on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 23 October, the date the ISS programme takes the 'longest continuous human presence in space' record from Mir. I make our score as:

• Date relevant to article topic: 1
• Vital article: 2
• Subject underrepresented at WP:FA: 1
• Plus probably 1 or 2 for the Main page representation criteria.

• Total: 4-6 points

Any thoughts or comments? Colds7ream (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We also need to come up with a good blurb that can be displayed, as goodness knows our lead section is far too long to do the job. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The International Space Station is an internationally developed research facility currently being assembled in low Earth orbit. On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled for completion by late 2011. The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2015, and likely 2020. With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye, and is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth. The ISS serves as a research laboratory that has a microgravity environment in which crews conduct experiments in biology, human biology, physics, astronomy and meteorology. The ISS is operated by Expedition crews, with the station programme maintaining an uninterrupted human presence in space since the launch of Expedition 1 on 31 October 2000, a total of 23 years and 192 days, meaning that it takes the record for the longest unbroken human presence in space from the Mir programme today. The ISS project began in 1994 with the Shuttle-Mir programme, and the first module of the station, Zarya, was launched in 1998 by Russia. Assembly continues, as pressurised modules and other components are launched by American space shuttles, Russian Proton rockets and Russian Soyuz rockets. The station currently consists of 14 pressurised modules and an extensive integrated truss structure. (more...)

How's this look? Colds7ream (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a change from ...is being assembled... to ...is nearing completion...--U5K0 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me! Colds7ream (talk) 09:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is an improvement -- though I'd bet 2:1 it will never be completed, unless the whole enterprise of human space exploration dies off. Wwheaton (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, particularly now there's this Node 4 talk being bandied about; so do we want 'currently being assembled' or 'nearing completion'? Given recent news, I'd probably swap it back to the original. Colds7ream (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perpetually under construction? :D--U5K0 (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair point! :-D Colds7ream (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Question on the date. I would prefer to nominate this for the space station's actual 10th anniversary of occupied presence, which is several days later. The question is, should this date be October 31 or November 2? I seem to remember some time ago that the date written in the article was November 2 when the expedition began, rather than October 31 which was the launch date. Arsonal (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

November 2, as you can see in the Expedition 1 article. That's a good point btw, in the context of ISS, the november 2 date is much more important than the october 31 date, we should probably change that sentence.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The 23rd is when ISS takes the record - more important, in my view, than the 10-year date. This is history in the making, people. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the topic of record vs. anniversary for a moment, the October 31 date is questionable as the NASA source uses November 2 as the start of the manned presence aboard the ISS. If October 23 is back-calculated from that date, then would it not be incorrect? Arsonal (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Its because the record is calculated from the time the programme first had crew in orbit, i.e. the launch of the first spacecraft, not its docking; for instance, Mir's record is calculated from the launch of Soyuz TM-8 on 5 September 1989 to the landing of Soyuz TM-29 on 28 August 1999, not the docking/undocking manoeuvres. Colds7ream (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible new node

A new node is being considered for the US section. It will be named Node 4 or Docking Hub System and attach to Harmony forward. It is based on the original Node 1 hardware that had been discarded and will fly on an Atlas V or Delta IV. It's likely to use the spacetug Autonomous Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle or an adapted ATV or HTV propulsion section. Will be interesting what comes out of this research effort. I wonder though if some effort might not be better suited at looking at which parts should be replaced in 2020 in order to keep the thing in the air at all. Seems a bit of a waste to launch this thing for less than 6 years. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like if they can deliver something of these sorts of dimensions from an EELV to the station, the logistical issues might well be sorted; apparently there may be a number of inflatable modules attached to this, so it'll be interesting to see how this pans out... Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we will see "urban sprawl" at the ISS, now that it is going to be up there for another decade at least. Once you are above 350 km or so, keeping it up requires far less energy, per kg, than launching new mass. Any module that is not actually dangerous will probably find some kind of use. Of course, any mass is dangerous in a certain sense: if the orbital debris problem is not addressed and solved pretty soon, near-Earth orbits could become uninhabitable in the foreseeable future. This is sort of our equivalent of the "global warming" problem, but in space. Wwheaton (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Current cooling loop/ammonia pump module anomaly

Although we do have an article "Major incidents involving the International Space Station", I suggest that issues that are currently active, and presenting constraints or hazards, be covered in this main article, so long as they do not threaten to take over and unbalance it. Colds7ream (talk) has lately removed the Cooling loop A failure from here. I know he may be (appropriately) sensitive about screwing up our aspirations for FA status. Personally I hope there is no real problem in simply duplicating such material until it becomes of merely historical interest, then dropping it from the general article here and leaving it for the record in the specialized list. Obviously we do not want to maintain an archive of detail about everything bad that has ever happened on ISS in this article.

So I wonder if other editors could weigh in about keeping it here until the current round of EVAs have resolved it? I think a naive outside reader would come here first looking for information, and I would like for them to find it, until the threat (ie, of a problem in the other cooling loop—we currently have a major single-point failure issue in an essential ISS system) is removed. This also has the advantage that the section is likely to attract more editor attention here, and thus be kept better and more current, until it eventually becomes moot. Then when we finally copy it to the archive, we will maybe have a better record than if it is buried too soon. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How about if someone writes up a summary paragraph for the major incidents article, we put it in a new 'major incidents' section under safety aspects, then have any current problems as a subsection within that? Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A request for input

Hi everyone, just a quick request for anyone who's helped me with this article add Mir to their watchlists - I'm doing some work over there at the moment, beginning the great slog which will hopefully lead to my third FA, and I'm going to need some external input. Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great work

Just wanted to say good job to everyone who has been working on this article. As a child of the Space Age, I'm always glad to see good writing about space exploration. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Brightness

The figure quoted on the Heavens Above website is the maximum theoretically possible brightness if the ISS was illuminated perfectly, bang overhead at it closest possible point to the Earth. In reality this situation is NEVER going to occur. The maximum brightness of the ISS in its current configuration is around -3.8, two magnitudes dimmer than the figure quoted in this article. Therefore the maximum brightness should be reduced to reflect (no pun intended!!) how bright it would actually appear to an observer under realistic optimal conditions. CrackDragon (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for that? If so, I'll edit the paragraph to reflect it. Colds7ream (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not as such. Since the apparent brightness of the ISS has increased over the past few years as new modules have been added, it's hard to find a site that categorically states how bright it appears at the moment. But by checking the Heavens Above website (where that figure for maximum theoretical brightness was obtained), it's plain to see that the brightest it can appear at the moment from any location is around -3.8. If one moves forward in time to November, then a figure of -4.0 is predicted, presumably due to the addition of Leonardo. Therefore, the best I can do to support my claim is to get you to play around in that website, which, by the way, is the best available for satellite predictions. CrackDragon (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

How's that? I'm a big fan of Heavens-Above myself actually, you've no need to convince me. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then. If we agree on a figure of -3.8 then I'll edit the page to reflect that this is as bright as it gets at the moment. The problem is that this figure will change. Come November, the addition of Leonardo will make it slightly brighter. By late January, there'll be 2 school bus sized vehicles docked (ATV and HTV), making it appear brighter again. CrackDragon (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I already made the edit, was asking what you thought! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine! Sorry, didn't notice you'd already made the edit before my last response! Living at 51°45' north, I get 2 weeks of evening apparitions every other month. I'll be grizzling for a change again come January! CrackDragon (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian participation no more

Embraer was unable to provide the subcontracted hardware to Boeing due mainly to escalating costs. Brazilian astronaut Marcos Pontes was trained by NASA and was stationed at Johnson Space Center, Houston, but never got a slot in the Space Shuttle schedule. Finally, a separate (commercial) agreement was struck with Rosaviakosmos and the Brazilian flew a nominal Soyuz "space tourist" mission in 2006. Ref: http://www.gizmodo.com.br/conteudo/made-brazil-o-brasil-na-estacao-espacial-internacional (In Portuguese) http://www.defesanet.com.br/zz/space_iss.htm (In Portuguese) http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-296_ISS_10th_Anniversary.html (In English. Note that there is no mention of Brazil as a partner anymore) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/488923main_exp25_26_press_kit.pdf (In English. Note that the Brazilian flag has been deleted.) Aldo L (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible new section,, the ISS in popular culture

I'm wondering if someone may have done this research, and is able to compile a new section --MinorFixes (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times in the past (check the archives), and consensus is that its not wanted. Colds7ream (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Node 3 and PMM spelling

I really don't want to restart the spelling war, but shouldn't the US spellings of "Tranquility" and "Pressurized" be used for Node 3 and the PMM since their names are proper nouns, and those are the official spellings. This would be in line with what we already do in this article for NASA "Centers". --GW… 10:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

True. Colds7ream (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I applied the same fix to a couple of NASA facility names (Kennedy Space Center for example) at the same time. --GW… 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw this article on the front page today and decided to come check out the talk page. Sure enough the stupid spelling thing is still an issue. I'd hoped that maybe you guys would have tired of this silliness by now, but I suppose that I shouldn't be too surprised. In my opinion this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen carry on here on Wikipedia (not least because it's a relatively insignificant problem). You should just know that I don't think very highly of at least one person involved in maintaining this article, and I will continue to avoid helping here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for stopping by. I'm sure we'll manage. Colds7ream (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a disgrace that British spelling was chosen for this article. It clearly violates the strong national ties guideline. I just become aware of this issue. Skimming over the threads related to it, my first impression was that there was clearly some stubbornness and bullheadedness in the face of clear reasoning. British spelling for this article is a terrible decision. When I have more time, I intend to read the previous threads more carefully so I have a better understanding of the arguments brought up. If need be I will bring the issue back up for discussion. This horse may still be alive. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TIES applies (hence the word "International" in the name). Also, please remember to be civil when discussing issues. Mlm42 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Having the word "International" in its name doesn't cancel WP:TIES. That is a very weak argument. When I have read the previous threads in full, I will post my official comments. Also, please don't go throwing around civil because someone has a strong opinion. There's a big difference between stating your opinion and being uncivil. Nothing makes a person want to be uncivil more than when somebody tells them to be civil inappropriately. Regarding the variety of English: Barring my discovering monumental discrepancies in my following the development of the ISS, the Space Station was built by and large threw the efforts of NASA. Every single shuttle launch was paid for by the United States. Even some of the Russian launches were paid for by the United States. Many of the modules were built by the United States. Many of the other modules were built by non-English speaking countries. When you compare the money and effort that went into building ISS from Americans to that all British-English speaking partners, it's a completely loopsided towards the Americans. THAT is the important thing to decide whether to use British or American English. The present state of the article is unfair and unjust that spits on the accomplishments of the Americans. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Unfair"? "Unjust"? "Spits on the accomplishments of the Americans"?!? You're reading way too much into this, and (to be honest) it really weakens any argument you might put forward. Do you really think that NASA cares if the article is written in British or US English? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"It really weakens any argument you might put forward." No, it doesn't. That kind of thinking has no business helping to build consensus. You are basically promoting a logical fallacy there. Your rhetorical question about NASA is not insightful either. NASA would not officially care one way or another about how Wikipedia conducts its business. It is our business to care as we are building the encyclopedia. And, if given a choice in the matter, NASA probably would pick American spelling. (It probably has a policy about spelling for its formal documents. I looked but couldn't find answer on that.) So in a sense, the answer to your question is "Yes, NASA would care," which undermines your own position. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a battle that has already been lost. The article was rewritten in UK English early on and since then the UK faction has steadfastly refused to allow it to be rewritten back into American English (there have been many pointless back and forth threads like this one on this discussion page, all eventually archived into non-existence). Basically Wiki has been taken over by UK English writers as Americans are just too busy building things like the ISS to worry about some third rate, junior high school level term paper project, i.e., Wikipedia. If you want a hoot, just take a look at almost any Wiki article on an American-built aircraft - you'll see plenty of information that is just plain wrong because it is written by some Brit that's never even seen the aircraft in question and is just repeating bad information from some UK published book written by some other Brit who's never seen the aircraft either. You'll also find that Americans have never apparently invented anything - it was all previously done by the British and we just copied them...frankly, I don't remember when the British ever even launched their first manned space flight, let alone started the ISS program - whoops, programme.

To put it this "debate" in perspective, it has been estimated that NASA will directly spend $72.4 billion in today's dollars on ISS through 2015. This does not count the cost of the 36 Shuttle missions used to build it (perhaps another $50+ billion). By comparison, Russia has spent $12 billion on ISS (not sure if this includes the cost of the spaceflights they've flown to bring up supplies, components, or crews), Japan and ESA $5 billion each, and our friends to the north, aka Canada, $2 billion. Here is a nice graphic, albeit cropped oddly, that shows the physical breakdown of ISS components by the different countries: http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311343/iss/Countries%20Involved.htm Man, talk about Wiki bias...

Just to reiterate here, according two WP:ENGVAR, there are basically two ways for deciding which English variety to use. The first, being WP:TIES, which is discussed above. Clearly if one variety of English were to be decided this way, it would be American English.. but some might claim that WP:TIES shouldn't be applied here. This seems to be the only point worth discussing. If we don't apply WP:TIES, then we have to go with WP:RETAIN, which points to British English. Looking at the history, even this 2002 version uses the word "kilometre", instead of the American "kilometer".

Regarding WP:TIES, we have to decide whether the ISS has "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". In particular, let's ask: Does the ISS have strong ties to Canada? I would say "yes" (granted I'm Canadian, so maybe I'm biased.. but consider the Canadarm2, for example). If the ISS does indeed have "strong ties" to Canada, then it doesn't have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, and hence WP:TIES doesn't apply. Mlm42 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh, what? Let's see U.S. contribution to ISS totals $72.4 billion and Canadian contribution totals $2 billion - don't know what "ties" you're talking about, but it sure looks like the American ones in terms of dollars are about 35 times greater than the Canadian ones...How may Canadian funded space launches put hardware up on the ISS? How many Canadian astronauts have risked their lives on its assembly? Other than the little robot arm, what exactly has Canada contributed? And how did the Canadians get their arm up to the ISS?

This thread starts going south with: "I don't think WP:TIES applies (hence the word "International" in the name)." If having the word international in the name, makes it no longer a prodominately American topic (BTW, don't see where American English is any less international than UK English in the first place), then some Brit should go off and rewrite the article on the IHOP restaurant chain in UK Engish as this American-based restaurant chain is obviously a British invention! Sorry, but your logic is silly.

It is also pretty obvious that "we have to go with WP:RETAIN" is equally a bad reason for keeping this article in UK English - look at the oldest archived version of this article. It was written in US English. It wasn't a stub but a pretty substantial article at that point. Somewhere, some Brit or other UK English writer violated Wiki policy to rewrite the article in UK English. So, to now say that we now have to live with this garbage because of this past violation is just being obtuse.

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with six cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Five of the six tags are for as of templates, and need no work at the moment. We're working on replacing the dead link. Colds7ream (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thought I had checked to make sure they weren't "as of" templates - guess I missed one...sorry! Please note the "dated link" tag in the infobox, also. Dana boomer (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2010 (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: [35] Colds7ream (talk) 13:42, 20 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)

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)

It's a lovely picture, and I support its inclusion conditional on copyright issues, I want to note, her good acting gives the viewer an impression of artificial gravity. But with humanity's tendency for self-sabotage, Earth orbit may never be suitable for tethers, so the real deal for this leisurely pose may have a red or grey backdrop. It is quite inspiring regardless. Penyulap (talk) 02:16, 7 March 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)

I support the idea, I think it would add a lot of interest for new readers, as it is not mentioned enough in the media, if at all. A mention of the tally, and the kinds of craft would be ideal.Penyulap (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually NASA tried to get the Russians to use one of their spacecrafts to take a picture of the station with spacecrafts from the four countries at one time, but he the idea was nixed. Take a look at the first paragraph under the Visiting Spacecraft section. It lists the current 5 spacecrafts that can dock. Hopefully some time next year we will add 2 more from the USA after we retire the Space Shuttle. user:mnw2000 15:23, 6 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 if it is incorrect. 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)

This would be better placed in the Sightings section. Possibly include some of the other viewing/sighting websites as well? (I prefer CalSky, for instance). --Tgeairn (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats an excellent suggestion, better than mine, especially if more than one weblink can be given. It will help first-time students/readers a great deal.Penyulap (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Calsky is an excellent site, although it is commercial, with ads, paid membership and limited access (session limits) for free users. So I have no opinion on it's inclusion.Penyulap (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have a high opinion of Heavens-Above, which I have used for several years. It has many convenient services, mostly well-done IMHO. I've not tried Calsky. Wwheaton (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already got a link to it in the 'interactive/multimedia' section of External Links, maybe we could just make it a bit more obvious? Colds7ream (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it, inserting Heavens above into the first paragraph, where the paragraph originally said 'naked eye' it now has a slightly longer sentence. It links to the Wikipedia page for heavens-above. I did this I think yesterday? I am very sorry I'd inserted it before the discussion was concluded. I apologize. P.S. I had never heard of calsky before Tgeairn suggested it. I tried it as a result.Penyulap (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Colds7ream, how would you feel about the existing text containing a link to the wikipage, so that new readers have a substantial chance of finding this site and sight ? Certainly the site exists somewhere in the small print, but I strongly feel that new users, first time users, don't know and will be less likely to be able to see or know how to see the ISS without a little help. When I first clicked on 'naked eye' I was very disappointed to find a link to very very common knowledge I already knew. Seeing something with the naked eye is a commonly understood statement, I'm sure not everyone knows it's also a technical term, but finding out it is a technical term seems to be of less groundbreaking importance than finding out how to see the ISS, and then tell all your friends about it, and show them also. For example, Have you ever been excited to tell your friends that 'naked eye is a technical term with the exact same meaning as the non-technical useage ? OR have you pointed out the ISS to anyone you know ? I'm embarrassed to admit I have never tried to impress anyone with the definition of 'naked eye' I'm somewhat scared they'd flee in horror of such tedium, but thats just my own secret fear. No doubt others don't fear this embarrassment as I do.Penyulap (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ISS orbit animation

Could this be used? Maybe in combination with a map with one or 2 orbits on it? --U5K0 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The orbital period looks correct, the starfeild looks primitive to my eyes. (Is there one Venus or two?) but overall, the camera appears to have a fixation with the united states, so I expect it is lacking in neutrality. My opinion is that there is a great deal of improvement possible for such an animation. (it has unexplained lines apart from the orbit, their meaning may not be immediately apparent to some viewers) Penyulap (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's not a bad shout; as you say, we just need to find some ground track maps to go with it. On the flip side, I've no idea if we've got room anywhere to put it... :-/ Colds7ream (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ground track plots are a good idea, along with (links to) an explanation of orbital inclination. There is criticism of the inclination, NASA claims it's too steep, and hard for them, and great for Russia, however the successor to ISS(opsek) will have a much steeper inclination, to better cover Russian territory (it won't be a joint effort between Nasa and Rsa). So something factual, simple to understand but completely informative and helpful would be awesome here. People are not idiots, but Jargon is Jargon. Avoid the Jargon, include all facts.Penyulap (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Window

Without discussing first (naughty), I've updated the Pressurized modules subsections Destiny and Cupola they appear to have been incorrect for approximately 12 months. I've changed the references to the windows. A 51cm is smaller than an 80cm window. Supporting information can be found in the cupola page, link in the cupola subsection. Penyulap (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicely spotted! Also, don't worry about making useful, non-controversial edits like that; just go ahead and be WP:BOLD if you spot an incorrect fact. Colds7ream (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I feel confident now. I have a scapegoat for any mischief I cause in future 8P (slightly kidding)Penyulap (talk) 11:39, 7 March 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)

As far as I can tell, you're correct, and I've removed the mentions. Thanks for the heads up! Colds7ream (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese have an X-ray all-sky monitor experiment MAXI on the ISS, reported here. It has lately been in the news in connection with gamma-ray outburst of the Crab Nebula in Sept 2010. For the future, the ISS seems to be a perfect site for an improved sky survey in the poorly-surveyed 300 keV to 30 MeV energy range (2 decades!) using Earth occultation tomography. Based on MAXI I am going to re-instate the mention, which is valid. I will add a reference. Wwheaton (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I'd still be hesitant to include 'astronomy' in the lead of the main article, or calling it a 'primary field', since that's one experiment from many on the ISS. But good find, that's certainly an astronomy experiment, and has even started producing results. Modest Genius ^talk 19:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm a gamma-ray astronomer by profession. COI, almost. Hope to see the 300 keV—30 MeV tomographic survey flown some day. Wwheaton (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Assembly / Deorbit

The sentence "Astronauts install each element using spacewalks." Doesn't cover Russian modules, all except one self-assembled robotically. The first parked itself in orbit, the remainder docked themselves, only one was carried by the the space shuttle, in a deal that benefited NASA (the shuttle avoided carrying ballast and so forth). 'Crew' may be more appropriate than 'Astronauts'. The sentence "NASA has the responsibility to deorbit the ISS." is not supported by the links given. It's unlikely they would as they have no experience deorbiting space stations in a controlled manner, Russian space stations Salyut 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and MIR have all been deliberately and successfully de-orbited. Possibly NASA only has the responsibility to deorbit the USOS, not the modules Russia wants to re-use. Are there any links available to support the sentence as it is, rather than referring to the USOS ? I'm very sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.Penyulap (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the first paragraph of assembly, adding 5 spacewalks I know of, and a link for them, altered the text to improve neutrality in regards to astronauts not including cosmonauts but crew including both, and changed the sentence on eva's to make the smaller number the 'remainder' which is more logical. I've added a sentence describing Russian module installation also, which is not primarily done by astronauts.Penyulap (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, nicely done. I'll see if I can find a source for the deorbit responsibility. Colds7ream (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a BBC article that quotes an unnamed RSA official saying words to the effect that Nasa needs to take responsibility, but I'll try and find something more solid also.Penyulap (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Made a correction to the assembly section, the sentence "These two Space Shuttle flights each added segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, which provided the embryonic station with communications, guidance, electrical grounding (on Z1), and power via solar arrays located on the P6 truss." which tends to imply these services were not already existing. Although it's technically just ambiguous, it needs clarity in the wording. Also, what is meant by electrical grounding ? for Electrical and electronics, the phrase is not used that way. The Zvezda module has a little added detail. The existing link [36] (at the current time) provides no useful informationPenyulap (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pressurised volume?

What is a source for ISS' pressurised volume? I looked through references 1-5 but it seems to me they don't contain this information. Thanks. Dodonov (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that put that together. There are 2 sources, which I neglected to add at the time. The first one is from the ESA website that at the time listed the ISS pressurised volume before PMM addition and the second is the nasa page which lists the PMM volume. give me a sec to find them.--U5K0 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Here we are:

• Iss pressurised volume on 22 Feb 2010 - ESA
• Rassvet pressurised volume - Rassvet_(ISS_module)#Basic_specifications
• PMM pressurised volume - people who built it :)

Also, I used this, which proved to be key to the entire process.
--U5K0 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's at times like this I wish we had a 'Like' button. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... just felt like lightening things up a bit. Also... the article section was just perfect for the joke.--U5K0 (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, U5K0! I'll try to use my innate ability in the russian version of the article. --Dodonov (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

China

Hello, the article makes the following statement about China's involvement in the ISS:

However, as of December 2010, China is not involved because of US objections.

This was cited to three separate sources, one of which was dead (and perhaps that was the one that was this statement's primary source, who knows?) But the two that can be accessed do not support this statement. One quotes various unofficial US commentators expressing uncertainty that China would make as good a partner as the Russians have been (the comparison being appropriate because the Russians were also initially viewed with suspicion for political reasons), but these are unofficial comments of pundits offering their educated opinions, not reflections on actual US policy (the wording above makes it sound as though the US is blocking China's entry into the program). The other source is a Chinese source, where an (again unofficial) commentator at the China Daily questions the financial and technical sense of China joining the ISS program so late, noting that China would be expected to bear a considerable financial burden without getting the experience that they would have had they had gotten in on the ground floor. He goes on to express concern about outside help in general, noting that while it might result in faster development, outside help also has a way of being rescinded suddenly and at crucial moments for political reasons, and that China is better off without it.

So basically as far as I can see in the two sources we have, China is not being officially prevented from joining the ISS, but rather various people on both sides are skeptical about whether it would make sense for them to do so.

So to that end I've reworded the sentence to the rather bland

However, as of December 2010 China remains uninvolved.

I've also removed the dead reference, because it's not available. If someone can find a mirror (the internet archive seems to no longer have the data) that would be great. If it turns out that a source can be found for the US officially blocking China's entry into the ISS, I would be happy to accept the original wording. I'm not opposed to it in the slightest, but don't want misrepresentation. Here's the dead cite: "China wants role in space station". CNN. Associated Press. 16 October 2007. Archived from the original on 14 March 2008. Retrieved 20 March 2008.

Thanks Eniagrom (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also the fact that the current partners are bound by the partnership agreement which was not easy to negotiate and would be hard to expand. Something to that effect was said by Bolden a few months ago when asked about China, Korea and India. He added that current partners would be free to include third parties in their own activities acording to the present arangement.--U5K0 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the revised wording is more accurate, and more directly reflects the sources cited. Thanks to Eniagrom for improving this! I have just now used the same sources to update the China-ISS involvement claim in the Chinese space station article.

By the way, there is a current solicitation on WikiProject Spaceflight to try to do a better job of coverage in the English Wikipedia of the Chinese space station in particular, and the Chinese space program, in general. The link to that discussion is here. Would love to get a couple of additional editors looking at improving this area of the Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Origins

I've updated the first sentence of 'Origins' to improve Neutrality, and as proof of my advancing years, I forgot to log in first, *sigh*. Btw, fantastic work on the China issue Eniagrom, I had serious concern about it too, but not enough time, (and I forgot it). thank you so much Eniagrom ! I also added 'Almaz' to the main article heading, lets hope people click on it, did you know that Russian Space stations used to have Cannons ? well lets help kids put that in their school projects ! lol.Penyulap (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement of purpose

I've added to the first section what I could find on the Russian purpose for the station, to balance the Nasa statement of purpose, and organized the flow of sentences as well as I can, trying to make patchwork editing sound less like patchwork editing. I listed the countries involved in alphabetical order where i can except for ESA, which has 18 members, with an ABC of countries Austria Belgium and Czech republic as well as many more, so I put them first, but please edit that, anyone who can think of a more appropriate order.Penyulap (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Earth, 3 spacecraft and 2 crew members from Cupola.

Russian cosmonaut Dmitri Kondratyev (left), Expedition 27 commander; and Italian Space Agency/European Space Agency (ASI) astronaut Paolo Nespoli in the Cupola module of the International Space Station

The pictured craft are from left to right, a Progress robot spacecraft, a Soyuz spacecraft and on the right, the Japanese robot spacecraft Kounotori 2. The Leonardo module I think is centre.

I'd like to use this picture in the article, if there are no objections, suggestions and comments are encouraged.

Anyone know the Soyuz and Progress numbers ? I only identify the type by sight.

The picture was taken last month, it would be nice to know who took it. (It wasn't me). Penyulap (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Well ask and ye shall find!! The only possibilities are Soyuz TMA-21 and Progress M-09M, and you are right about Leonardo. Since there is only one Soyuz docked, and 2 crew members are in the photo, that leaves us with only one possible person to take the photo. That person being Cady Coleman. I have only one question for you, where do you plan to use the picture? Its not an objection to the photo being used, just want to make sure it gets used in the right spot.--NavyBlue84 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, so at that time, no visitors?, and left almost alone on the ISS, they down tools and start looking out the windows, just as mission control suspected all along, It's what I'd do too. Where abouts would you suggest is the 'right place' ? I'd suggest somewhere that speaks of the ships involved, or multiple dockings ?... also, I haven't fixed the copyright on the picture page very well, not sure how, if I could get some help ? Also Colds7ream there is a candle burning photo you uploaded, but it's not here, and should be, any reason for it's omission ? Also, thank you Theeagleman for your assistance, keep up the good work !Penyulap (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the description, thanks NavyBlue84, curiously it doesn't show up here straight away.. I don't know why.Penyulap (talk) 08:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think with a little reorganization, it should go in the life on board section. I would move the photo of the STS-127/Expedition 20 joint meal next to the food section and put this photo where the photo just moved is now. No, there were no visitors at the time. As for the match photo, it was in this article, but more then likely got moved over to the ISS science article.--NavyBlue84 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• The candle pic got replaced by the one of Mike Foale in the glovebox quite some time ago now - if you'd like to put it back, knock yourself out! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

nothing to do with neutrality

Someone who hasn't logged in, or has no account, called 109.60.22.114 made adjustments to the article, which needed undoing as they were too sweeping. But, I think the guy may have a point, I've thought so myself. I'd put in the soviet statement of purpose, and left the nasa statement of purpose as is. Maybe thats what he's upset with? Put simply, the ISS was an american idea. So the origin section or the original statement of purpose needs some reference to that, but I haven't had the interest in going over that material. I must say I find the Russia programs more exciting, like the narratives of the Soyuz that almost landed in china after a 'non-optimal' launch. I'd say I don't enjoy researching Nasa history as much. Anyhow, I like doing general research, and thought that the article suffered no lack of american editors, so I haven't concentrated on that side as much. Certainly there are serious shortages of editors for the english speaking version of the chinese space program, and also for the english speaking version of the Russian space program. The space shuttle only refers to the american shuttle for example. But there is plenty of information available on other space shuttles. A list of them would have at least 8 kinds, maybe a dozen. I'd welcome any opinions on how biased or unbiased I am, or the article should be.Penyulap (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are space planes. Space Shuttle (capitalized) specifically refers to NASA's space plane.--Craigboy (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mission control.

It is somewhat general knowledge that the ISS is run from the Russian Mission control, but it needs citations, true. The old wording didn't indicate which country issued for example flight commands, and the page still doesn't show who makes the daily work schedules and so forth. (The modules do fly together, not separately in formation, the space station as a whole is commanded from a single mission control center). There have been some neutrality issues with the article before (and still are) that give credit incorrectly to NASA. This link http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html indicates even NASA acknowledges the Russian Mission control center's role. "Roscosmos oversees all Russian human space flight activities. Moscow Mission Control is the primary Russian facility for the control of human space flight. It is located in Korolev, outside of Moscow." and uses political language to say NASA talks a lot. There are probably better links out there, although this one is from NASA, so should satisfy pro-NASA parties. Penyulap _talk 03:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Russia only controls the their segment. When the CMG's on the truss are in control, then it is Huston that is controlling, otherwise when the thrusters on Zvezda are used it is Russia. To say all control is done by Russia is incorrect, because Russia does not control the whole station. As for work schedules, the time is allocated based on the usage agreement and each space agency that gets time, schedules the astronaut's they get to do whatever work. It is then put together and up linked to the station usually via US TDRSS, and to the Russian segment when they go over Russia. I don't have a problem with the wording, it just needs a true reliable source, needs to be re-worded to something like "The ISS is jointly controlled by Roscosmos and NASA." or it needs to be removed all together. Also, if I am correct NASA is the only one who can control the USOS, with the obvious Japan controlling Kibo and ESA controlling Columbus. So that sentence does not make much sense that way either.--NavyBlue84 14:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, your right, Russia controls their segment, Jaxa theirs, and so forth, I understand what your saying. Also for attitude control, I understand now, Gyros by the americans, thrusters by the russians. (Didn't know that, where can I find it explained?). Work schedules, isn't there a single desk system to determine this ? is it done by conference always? who is part of the conference ? for example, some consensus has to be reached before an EVA can be done, I haven't found info on where that occurs. On the american side, I found this via the Nasa website: International Space Station Timelines. These are copies of the flight plan timelines used by the crew onboard the International Space Station. The timelines are sent to the crew in Russian, and partially translated for ground controllers in America. No all-English translations are available at this time. It doesn't say, but the implication suggests the desk is in Russia, with obviously, conferences from there to the other partners. The attitude control being done independently is a surprise, I would have thought the Esa computer in the russian segment did all of that. The russian segment as you would know is a space station by itself, (and who knows most of it may be part of opsek eventually). I would have thought that is the part that has the 'steering wheel' so to speak, rather than every 'seat in the car' having one of it's own. Sorry I talk a lot, just trying to understand the actual workings of the station. Penyulap _talk 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• No need to worry about talking to much, I do the same! I am not sure exactly how the timelines are put together, but I do know that there is some form of a utilization guide (NASA gets x% of man hours, RSA gets x% and so on). As for EVA's, I am sure there is some process that determines what will be done and when. Right now, if you look most science EVA's are Russian and maintenance is American. I think everything is done by conference, and all partners participate. I think most of the control of the ISS is done by the computers that are in the US segment (in unity node I think). I am not 100% sure, just going on what I can gather from sources.--NavyBlue84 00:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind comments, from general knowledge, unity (a mnemonic name for me) from memory is just a joiner between the Russian segment which is a full space station and the USOS, which was originally passive, relying on the ROS, and later when it got too heavy, it had gyros and such fitted, as well as life support for all the extra space, and extra panels for it's electric demands and so forth. But Flight control was done first by Zarya, which flew into space and parked in orbit, then after the second russian module (a life support/service module)went and docked with it robotically, it handed over control from it's computer to the newer module, which has an ESA built computer in it (all done by pre-programmed commands, without needing ground control's intervention). After that, I'm not aware of any handovers. So for example if the crew or ground control order the station to turn it's nadir face heaven-ward, the computer that takes those commands at the moment is the ESA computer in the Russian Service module, using it's instruments for horizon, sun and moon detection and so forth. It would I expect, not just use it's own peripheral motors and thrusters within that module, but would give commands to all the other appropriate actuators in the station, because the station is now so large it needs slave actuators. But I'm going on memory, and have no idea where to find all that stuff. I have 'citation needed' tags in my memory, LOLZ. Also, while Robots are usually used to make altitude burns, I think thats mostly to stop double handling of the fuel, and reduce wear and tear on the stations engines. (the robot engines are disposed of afterwards on de-orbit, so wear and tear is irrelevant.) Thats more-so what I mean by control of the station, which I'm really sure is done from Moscow, other control centres would be like deciding other things, like what experiments to do and so forth. They control what goes on in their segments, but thats not flight control and so forth. Anyhow, research is needed to find this sort of thing, my memory isn't a cite-able source, and my memory fails me as to where the info comes from.Penyulap _talk 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I found this on an ESA page " The DMS-R, installed in the Russian Service Module 'Zvezda', is the set of onboard computers, their avionics and software that provide for the overall control, mission and failure management of the entire Russian segment of the ISS.

The DMS-R performs functions as:

• Guidance, navigation and control for the entire ISS,
• Onboard systems and subsystems control,
• Mission management with supervisory control by the on-board and ground crews,
• Failure management and recovery,
• Time distribution, time tagging and synchronisation,
• Data acquisition and control for on-board systems and experiments
• Exchange of data and commands with the other parts of the ISS "

It's from the European Space agency itself, so I popped it straight in. Penyulap _talk 22:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Crew size may be increased to seven when Commercial Crew comes online

"A & S: Will the size of the crew come down?

Suffredini: No. In fact, we’re designed on the U.S. side to take four crew. The ISS design is actually for seven. We operate with six because first, we can get all our work done with six, and second, we don’t have a vehicle that allows us to fly a seventh crew member. Our requirement for the new vehicles being designed is for four seats. So I don’t expect us to go down in crew size. I would expect us to increase it."

http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/AS-Interview-Mike-Suffredini.html

--Craigboy (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly the man in this video says there will be a seventh crew quarters in MLM when it launches.--Craigboy (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Rough translation of a Russian article also seems to indicate a crew quarter will be in MLM. -AVIA.MirTesen.ru--Craigboy (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Docking

Added a small (so far) subsection for dockings, outlining how different craft dock at the ISS, and how long. Just a summary sort of thing, for new readers. Surprisingly it hadn't been easily accessible info before. Feedback invited.Penyulap _talk 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is one change I would make, for clarity. It sounds like the ATV can be manually docked, which is inaccurate. The only crew intervention possible is to abort the docking. Only progress can be manually docked by the Russians. I am not sure how to word it (just got done writing a 1,050 word research report), so maybe you or someone else can. Obviously, ATV, HTV, Dragon and Cygnus are manually docked as well.--NavyBlue84 01:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• HTV, Cygnus and Dragon Cargo are berthed, not docked. I believe they autonomously approach the station but than are manually grappled by Canadarm and connected to the station.--Craigboy (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarifications, I have added them.Penyulap _talk 12:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• 'This occurs during portions of every mated shuttle ISS mission.' was referring to the Nasa shuttle taking over command of station attitude control, but is factually incorrect, the station's computers may well enter a passive mode where corrections aren't made whilst the shuttle is docking, but thats not the same as the shuttle moving the station about to correct it's attitude.Penyulap _talk 05:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ralfvandebergh (talk contribs) (158,089 bytes) (→External links)

whats the story on this one ? those pictures look pretty good, is there a problem with that person putting in that link ? Penyulap _talk 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I believe they were deleted for a few reasons (at least why I reverted him in other articles). The first is WP:EL, since a lot of the time he was linking to sites like Photobucket and the like. Secondly, when he did link to another site, it was his own site, so that is a conflict. I know it was just in the external links and I think the link was done right, but in previous edits else where they weren't formatted right. Those are the 3 reasons why I reverted him in the other articles.--NavyBlue84 11:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Cool, that makes sense, it does say that, about linking to your own site. Apart from that, for example if we inserted it, would it be ok ? I was reading the rest of the page about linking with an open mind and it all looks good for linking to his site, especially if it is his site. The main error I see is it hasn't been discussed on the talkpage first. However, it occurs to me automatically that English may not be his first language. (It also occurs to me that a lot of ISS editors who are fluent in english don't discuss things on the talkpage either ! I'm guilty of that, although there are plenty of times I wish people would use this page. Especially when it comes to overlooking the contributions of the ISS partners. (getting down from my highhorse now). It says "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, " and I'd think it's looking good for that, and if it is the photographer himself, maybe here 1, 4 and 5 seem spot on. Also, if we can assume he has been just trying to help, and I can't do that as I have no idea what other transgressions he's burdened you with, maybe we can figure his language skills are only as good as most of ours (monolingual). That being the case, or if it is similar to that, I'd think we can give either him or the photographer/astronomer a sentence of description somewhere in the article. The pictures are certainly amazing, and it seems to tick these boxes

• Is the site content accessible to the reader?
• Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
• Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?

he may simply, like many of us, not have enough time to devote to wikipedia, due to other commitments, and simply have done what he could do with the time available.P.S. I feel like an idiot pointing this out to someone as experienced as you are, it's more for everyone (which, come to think of it, multiplies the feeling) or at least one newbie reader out there might be reading this ? Penyulap _talk 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think that putting the link in the external links section is right. To me it is not helpful. However, that being said, I do believe that at least one of the pictures of the whole station could be included in the sightings section. We would need permission and for it to be uploaded to Commons. I would whole heartedly support that route if it is chosen.--NavyBlue84 14:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. The external links section should be a very condense set of external links towards directly related 1st rank sources about the topic 'International Space Station' and we already have those links (actually we probably already have too many links there to be honest). A Wikipedia article is not a linking guide towards everything related that can be interesting to a group of people. It is a condensed aggregation of information. We could aggregate 5000 links like that for this specific article if we wanted, but we don't, because it would make the article unusable.

If we would have a well developed article 'Observations of the International Space Station/artificial satellites of Earth', then it might be appropriate in the external links section of THAT article. And if the images were freely licensed, then probably one of them could go in our 'observations' section of this article (the images are more important than the website on which they are released), but none of that is the case. A well developed article as this is difficult to expand with new information, much more difficult than the average reader thinks. I can understand the frustration editors like these probably have, but really, if you think about 'how do I provide superb information' as opposed to 'how do I make sure ppl find this fantastic information from Wikipedia' then you can often see why some of these 'content guidelines' are in place. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the guy seems rather busy all right, no response as yet to an email. He has twitter, but I do not, if someone else wants to contact him that way it may speed things up.Penyulap _talk 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have received a positive reponse from Mr Vandebergh regarding the inclusion. He has some amazing shots, and I think it's good if we can use/make one thats well labelled with the parts of the station, it's being discussed at the moment. Looks good ! He also has other shots, suitable for other pages, like an incredible one of the sun with mercury in transit across the face, and two satellites in formation as well. it's WOW. The spy satelite enthusiasts would want to see that one, a new way to spot their elusive prey. It's brilliant I feel to have the work of hobbyists shown if not showcased. It stands alone as brilliant work. like projecthorus.org it's amazing what you can do at home. Inspiring. Penyulap _talk 00:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Primary Contributing Nations

It clearly states that the contributing nations included "eleven member states of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom)", but on the image depicting a map of all contributing nations the UK isn't highlighted. Any idea why? Cooper 25 (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Because the UK withdrew participation before the program started and is therefore not shown. Please see [this]--U5K0 (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

I just came to the ISS page yesterday. The Russian Orbital Segment (ROS) is the topic of the second sentence, and it is followed by several sentences on the Soviet/Russian space program. This didn't strike me as being a general overview of the ISS. I hit the refresh button to see if this was a temporary glitch in continuity. After digging through the history page, I realized that the ISS page used to have an introductory paragraph that had the sort of flavor I expected. I see that the contributor of the information on the Soviet/Russian program (Penyulap) has done a lot of work on the ISS article, so I'm not going to butt in and revert to a previous version. However, I will ask if someone more capable than I could go in and fix up the introductory paragraph to restore the general and authoritative tone that I found when I looked into the history page and read the previous versions. (By the way, I am not 109.60.22.114) Thanks!Dc3 (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Dc3, thank you for your comments ! It's a big help, as the opening paragraph needs help. The fact of the matter is the ISS was an american plan to begin with, and the first paragraph should reflect that. Also, the ISS has evolved from a project that required Russian expertise to get off the ground to a project that relies completely upon the Russians manned spacecraft in order to continue, at least for the next few years. After STS-135 the only countries capable of manned spaceflight will be Russia and China. China will have it's own space station later this year, and are not involved with the ISS. So the introduction needs to recognize contributions of all partners to be balanced properly. If you'd like to help, please do, I'd be grateful for the assistance, and am grateful for the feedback. There is a lot to do on wikipedia, and everyone would be grateful for your help. Especially lacking is info on the chinese program. Penyulap _talk 09:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• I've added a description from the (MOU) let me know if that helps, please feel free to add any research you find yourself.Penyulap _talk 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• well, 91.210.230.118 has contributed by deletion to the opening paragraph, however, I replaced the deleted info for the following reasons, the deletion was made by 91.210.230.118 because '(strange and biased XX-century-cold war-style quasi-cite removed) ' I can certainly agree it may seem strange and is old, however, that is a good match for the NASA defined purpose which explicitly states "crew health and performance on missions beyond low Earth orbit". At the time NASA made the statement, the constellation program was funded I believe. However, that's long since changed and they have no funded program for travel beyond earth orbit at all. So really why leave in the NASA statement which is no longer relevant and doesn't meet wiki's up-to-date info standards, and take out the 'permanent soviet presence in low earth orbit' which is actually true (except they have changed their country of course, the Soviet union has broken up). I don't want to delete the NASA purpose, I'm happy for it to stay as is, even though it's no longer accurate, someone else can make that call. But the RKA still has scheduled, funded launches all the way to MARS as far as I know, lolz. They have OPSEK modules built and being built, and no weakening in sight for their manned space program. NASA is concluding it's manned space program schedule with STS-135, and after that they are pretty much space tourists on commercial and russian craft, please correct me if I'm wrong here, many countries send experiments on other countries craft, and crew as well. So Nasa's purpose for the ISS is what currently ? Can anyone find a good up to date statement ? Well for now, I guess the original statements are as good as it gets.Penyulap _talk 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• UPDATE: According to multiple reliable sources, ISS assembly is complete according to a primary source, NASA astronaut Mark Kelly present onsite when he made that remark. Can we change this paragraph from '...being constructed...' to 'constructed' in this article? And similar changes elsewhere such as in the ISS assembly article?

A few of the RSes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43216921/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20110527/sc_space/astronautscompletespacestationin4thfinalspacewalk

Dsf (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dsf, your right, they are good reliable sources, but they aren't correct. Msn is owned by microsoft isn't it? they think Windows is an operating system, lol. Get some UBUNTU ! Um, back on topic, this is a perfect specimen of american-centric thinking, which was one of my primary motivations for assisting with the editing of this page. That and my love of all things spacey. The article is written from an international perspective, and the ISS is not finished. The article in it's current form can explain why. The space program when portrayed in american media, and thank you for providing two perfect examples, of , to put it bluntly, LIES. If you watch NHK TV from Japan it has a similar treatment, suggesting that the ISS will rely upon Japans HTV spaceship as the only way to get items to orbit, once the shuttle finishes. The only thing you can do is realize the media is full of big fat liars and seek the truth. BRILLIANT sources btw, YOUR THE MAN! I'd fully support a new section, based on those references, covering media dis-information. Anyhow, read up about the MLM Nauka module, and your smart enough to work out for yourself what you'd like to do about the article.Penyulap _talk 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your perspective. But with that said, WP content needs to be verifiable. So if you feel assembly is not complete, can you offer some reliable sources to support that assertion?

Point is well taken regarding 'LIES', but that would be a bit of WP:OR so... need WP:RS...

It is undoubtedly an international venture with multiple perspectives, but I have not yet seen any compelling evidence showing that planned core assembly has not been completed.

So... multiple RS to support your assertion, please? :)

The lead has already been rewritten by someone else to mention assembly completed on 27 May 2011. So far, I have not seen any compelling reason to not tweak the lead paragraph to match the rest of the article.

It is not that I am lacking in judgment, but that I much prefer to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS prior to altering the lead paragraph of a key WP article. It also offers me an opportunity to not implement changes if I might be mistaken. Regards,

Dsf (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely that you'll get any consensus, the page is not visited by decent editors often enough, and the article suffers as a result. Just read up on the subject. The MLM on the article is a good place to start. Unfortunately, even after your an expert on the subject, if there are not enough decent editors about, to share the workload of protecting against vandalism, and provide consensus, it's pointless, as the behavior of Ckatz has illustrated. The consensus about the lead which has been reached on the talkpage and implemented can be overturned by people who do not participate in discussion, and because of the The three revert rule a single editor can't protect the article. So everytime some idiot wrecks the article, you can fix it, but only up to a point, after which, just letting it goto h*** is all I can do. Penyulap _talk 14:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC) (Edited the h word, upon recalling that for americans of which many are readers, it's a much stronger term than in my culture, where it's quite acceptable)Penyulap _talk 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap, please avoid personal insults. I tried to be positive in my edit summary; it would have been much easier to simply state that there are a number of problems with the writing, grammar, punctuation and capitalization in the revised version, and that it did not either look as good or read as well as its predecessor. I could also have noted that, based on this talk page, there does not appear to be solid support for the material to be reworked in the way that you have done it. That doesn't mean that it should not be changed, only that a different approach is needed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. I have made many edits to this article, and the overwhelming majority have consensus. When reverting an edit you disagree with, it helps to state the actual disagreement. This acts as a guide so that consensus can be determined through continued editing.

17:11, 1 June 2011 Ckatz (talk | contribs) m (163,780 bytes)(Actually, Penyulap, your intentions are good but this is a better lead, even if changes are to be made.. Discuss and work from here.)

Your edit summary and revert is unhelpful, you should have used the talkpage, or BETTER, you should have fixed the 'writing, grammar, punctuation and capitalization' yourself. I can't be expected to do everything myself, that is not reasonable. If you are fixing 'writing, grammar, punctuation and capitalization' only then click the "This is a minor edit" box. Do not use it when removing content in an article. Please use the talkpage when you want to change the article. You don't need to use it first, but use it to explain what you are doing and why. I'd invite you to express your opinions on any of the many issues currently open on this page. Take your pick, and start letting everyone know what you think of the article rather than it's editors. You've expressed concerns over 'writing, grammar, punctuation and capitalization' and thats a good start. Please continue so I can find concerns you have that I can help with. Penyulap _talk 17:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." By your own definition, the changes to the lead did not have consensus as they were reverted by at least two editors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." is not my own definition it is Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps you don't recognize it. The original from the 'What consensus is' section of the Wikipedia:CONSENSUS article says the following...

"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. "

Challisrussia (talk | contribs) (163,780 bytes) (Introduction must be rewritten, this is a featured article so everything must be good.) (undo)

Challisrussia is a prolific editor, and I've discussed his actions with him inviting him to offer any input he has in relation to the article, he's said he was just cleaning up the introduction to the page, and I expect he was responding to Colds7ream's call for a re-write of the lead section as best he could. However, he's offered no further guidance or opinion on the lead.

When you say at least two editors, I am guessing you are including yourself, is that correct ? If that is the case, I have invited you to raise any concerns you have with the updated lead, and you've mentioned 'writing, grammar, punctuation and capitalization', I'm happy to agree with you there, my skills in English grammar are not perfect even though I am a native speaker. (I'm focused on other languages at the moment, devoting study time to them as priority.) However, as the new lead has been removed by you, I can't make any new revisions to it, unless it is replaced. Further, there is a limit to the errors that I am able to identify, as I am the author I can't see many of the mistakes I make, and I'd need help from someone else to make corrections. I invite you to do so. You've stated it does not 'look as good or read as well as its predecessor' how would you improve this ? could you elaborate. The first paragraph is problematic because it gives the historical NASA objective of the space station which has now changed significantly. However it does not state that the objective has changed, or use a qualifier such as originally. Also, when other partners objectives are inserted, they look out of place if they are of the same vintage. They were removed, and I agree with the comments left by those editors. I changed the structure of that sentence, not as a complete solution, but as a structure that was easier to edit and update the objectives of each partner. A framework for people to edit as desired. Perhaps that is better than an inaccurate, or at least outdated statement of purpose from a single partner. Do you think so too?

Also if there are further editors who have not reached consensus with the new lead, would you help me by identifying them. I'd like to invite them to raise any concerns they have with the new lead.

The (proposed) new lead also contains other new information I have written, please have a look and say what you think of it on a part by part basis, please make suggestions on how the look can be improved or how it can read Better than the old one. I've already inserted it onto this page, and numbered it to facilitate a point by point analysis. Penyulap _talk 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)