Talk:International Space Station/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Assembly complete?

NASA stated during the most recent shuttle mission STS-134 that the assembly of the ISS was completed with the last shuttle EVA and the final EVA by shuttle astronauts? —Rsteilberg ^talk 03:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the United States portion.--Craigboy (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Moon, Mars, Manned.

When checking the links for "The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2015, and likely 2020.[8][9]" which don't reflect the new date of 2028 which was mentioned in tokyo, one of those links mentions the "The Augustine Committee (in 2010?) estimated that the heavy lift rocket for getting to the moon would not be available until 2028 or 2030, and even then they found “there are insufficient funds to develop the lunar lander and lunar surface systems until well into the 2030s, if ever." That seems to indicate that the changing plans NASA has are winding back further. Is there any up to date link that show the progress of a moon or mars manned mission?, what I mean is, I know a lot of people who have plans to goto the moon and mars, but they have no budget and no spaceships. Is there a link to information about the work being done to get astronauts to Mars or the Moon ? that would be a good link to include to show they still are working on it in 2011 Penyulap _talk 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's rather depressing reading up on President Obama and Bush's directives for the ISS. For going to other planets, there have always been so many excited people all across the world, and it's like they (americans) are saying 'were going to mars! were going to mars!' and then Obama says 'No your not.' and devastates everyone. Reading his speeches is unpleasant to say the least. Bush however, I think he was the one who always said strange things ? He said ' Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost.'-and then to make sure everyone heard him right, a NASA official re-iterates it all a day or two later. The mars society guy summed up criticism with "Under the Obama plan, NASA will spend $100 billion on human spaceflight over the next 10 years in order to accomplish nothing".

While it is the official American policy, I can't bring myself to include any of it in the article, even if it is the most up-to-date direction for the ISS. It's not inspiring, it's depressing. It's like people not wanting criticism in the Lead, myself included, who needs critics when you've got Obama policy. Someone else can update the NASA purpose or policy for the ISS, I can't stand it, I'll do all the other 4 partners, and China, and hey, I promise I'll even make Canada look good, if someone else will do Obama... lolz Penyulap _talk 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not start here? Thanks for all of your work on this article, but if you only cite critics of the current Administration's policies your results will appear to be biased. More authoritative sources than the opinion pieces you cite include, for example, NASA itself, Congress, and the White House. Ddama (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and THANK YOU FOR THAT BRILLIANT LINK. WOW, that is FRESH !! two weeks old, I haven't seen it, I hadn't heard about it, your right up to date, I'm like so 5 minutes ago. I'm rushing now to incorporate it into the article and I'll also have to fix links on other associated wikipages where I can, but there is so much work to do, I mean you should see the list of work to be done on the spaceflight club thingy I'm in page, it's overwhelming. I have enough work to do right here until the end of time, although RL will take over, I hope the next zealous editor realizes fast that The 5 partners won't stop their work upon hearing the article on wiki has reached FA status, maybe with your space industry connections you can ask them to hold off a bit so I can catch up ?

Oh and I do try to stick to those 3 sources for anything NASA related, or at least related to any windback/rethink they are up to which I think may be controversial, as much as possible, or at least to make it some unimpeachable source like ESA for things like station guidance, otherwise people just won't believe a thing, and edit it back, after all MSNBC and YAHOO are against us, what's with that anyhow ? what's their problem ? Sometimes I worry I'll get 'your biased' remarks if I humbly mention the MLM or suggest Russia has a space program, and China ? OMG heaven forbid ! But I'm not talking any swipe at your remarks, no way, your WAY up there on the list of helpful to me people, because of that fantastic lead you've given me, That'll keep me busy for a while, I'll plug the hole the deletion creates with links to the information, and polish it up as I go along. I won't ask you for any help, you've mentioned on your page how busy you are, though I invite you if you do get time, please read the page all the way through if you get a few minutes. For now, I'll just say THANK YOU MAN !!! YOU THE MAN !!! once again, and I'll get back to work with that new stuff (rolling up my sleeves now). I had been busy after I realized the other day there is no info for schoolkids to do what I always wanted to do for years and years now, that is, have a chat by radio to the ISS passing over, but that's more of a whimsical idea really, I'd not want to interrupt them or waste their time. But teachers need info on that. People need inspiration. Thats why I'm passionate about the Heavens-Above website. If little kids aren't looking up at the night sky and dreaming there will be no space program in 20 years and you'll be looking for other work ! I don't want to live in that future. All our eggs are in the one basket as it is, and trouble ahead too.Penyulap _talk 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

p.s. here is the list of things that need cleanup by WikiProject Spaceflight. http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListingByCat.php?project=Spaceflight .....only 2,000 pages to go ! (panic) Penyulap _talk 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Current state of the article

Though mostly likely not on purpose someone has made the intro a mess (space station paragraph is fine though). The article doesn't need to list each agency's mission statement's in the opening paragraph. ISS's location is listed on NASA's website, you don't need Heavens-Above. ISS is not expected to be remain operational all the way to 2028 (the used sources state this). Criticism shouldn't be listed in opening paragraph.--Craigboy (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly let me say thank you for the assistance, you are correct about Robonaut, it's a payload, not part of the ISS itself. Very well spotted. Your editing is brilliant. As for heavens-above, I do believe it needs it's own reference for at least two reasons, one, it's used as a ref so very often for this page, it's impeccable and non profit. Two, and the overriding reason, is for everyone who wants to know more about the ISS, who has an interest in the ISS, being able to see the ISS by looking up is one amazing experience for anyone. There may come a day when space stations are a great deal larger, and details more defined, sure, right now, we don't live on a moon filled with Ewoks, but there are plenty of people who see a bright object in the sky, on the move, brighter than any planet or star, and THAT is the first thing that brings them to investigate the ISS. Everyone above and below certain latitudes can see it, rich or poor first or third world, tribesman or illegal immigrant. Many come to this page with the question 'What did I just see outside' and this page cannot answer that question, they have to be redirected to Heavens-above for the answer, which it does provide (for everything that can be identified, some military sats it has, some it doesn't). It can tell you what you just saw, this page can't. They will probably return with the answer and then read up all about the ISS, but with no guide, 'I saw something, I read the ISS page, and I still don't know' sure, hours more research and they could find out, but lets do them a favor and make research easy. Just my thought on the subject, how do you feel about it ?

The objective of each partner in the first paragraph is a brief attempt to answer the chief questions 'who what which where when why how'? Why and who, there was plenty of ways to express this poorly, in a way no-one was happy with, I think if you don't mention canada, it'll hold for a while, but if you don't mention major parts of the why and who, then it's not answering the question as well. It's not perfect at the moment, for sure, but how can it be improved, without making it worse ? I did remove the listing of each space agency towards the bottom of the opening, which cut it back quite a bit, I did what I could to whittle out the dead wood across the whole opening, at all times keeping the 'who what which where when why how'? in mind, We can't quote NASA's description verbatim, a NASA article is not the same as a wiki article. We aren't the same.Penyulap _talk 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Theres plenty of reasons why it won't come down in 2015 or in the foreseeable future, it's a pittance for the Russians to keep it up there, if NASA wants it down, that's just tough, they can't do squat to bring it down, JAXA won't want to see their KIBO incinerated so soon if at all, and their flush with cash, RKA has made no indicative moves on OPSEK, the only possible telling thing is the MLM hasn't been launched yet. NASA is the only one who wants it down, but there's nothing they can do except pay someone else to do so. So their lack of funding can't kill the station, because funding is what is needed to kill the station. The only thing you can say for sure is the next US president will overturn the US space program yet again, bring any program in progress back to the starting point. The reality of their future is as space tourists and little if anything else. There is private enterprise, however private enterprise is simply not capable of running a space program, it's a governments domain. "No plan exists to deorbit the ISS in the forseeable future, no spacecraft capable of doing the job has been approved or is being constructed" you can quote your friend penyulap on that one. But I don't meet wiki standards unless I publish, and I can't be bothered, lol.Penyulap _talk 04:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't expect such a long response, it obvious that you are passionate about the subject but you must understand that given the length of this article somethings should be mentioned while some not.

Heavens above - Just because its used as a ref doesn't mean it needs a description in the article. Through google it is incredibly easy to find an ISS tracker and I believe every partner (NASA, ESA...) has one on their webpage. I'm not opposed to article saying something like "The ISS is the largest artificial satellite in low earth orbit and can be seen with the naked eye..."

Partners summary - Each agency already has a wiki page, their objectives can be listed there. If its a mission statement than you can quote it, just use quotations. Also try to avoid sentences that may have bias like "Russia continues perfecting spacecraft, space stations and all associated systems".

ISS's deorbit - Funding has been agreed upon until at least 2020 not 2015. Stating the ISS will remain in orbit until 2028 and than sourcing it with links that contradict that statement is obviously going to result in that sentence's removal. Wikipedia is not a place for personal projections. There is a plan to deorbit the ISS, you mentioned it. If you like to read more than go here.

--Craigboy (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive advice, I've already altered the partners summary, removing the word perfecting, which is a good call on your part. I do my best to avoid weasel words (usually) and I dropped the ball there. Unfortunately my solution is actually a little longer, and I'm at a loss to include credit where it's due for the Russians longstanding leadership in the production of reliable safe spacecraft, which they have by a wide margin. Yes I am aware the Chinese have Zero casualties in their manned program, however they've only had a handful of launches by comparison. Thankfully they are not hesitating to learn from others mistakes in design of their craft, and also avoiding an entire VHS Vs Beta thing by using Docking rings compatible with Russia. Which brings me to my next point, I apologize for talking so darn much. Certainly I do talk (type) a lot, and let's hope I can harness this superpower for good rather than Evil. On a serious note, sometimes I think not enough people use the talkpage.

Do you have an idea for giving credit where it's due in a shorter description of the Russian Objective for the ISS ? or should we leave it with the real estate it has, because it's a hard one to fix/they deserve the real estate after all that effort ?

The partners summary, I think it really comes back to the big 7 Questions answering the WHO and WHY, if you take it out, does the intro fulfill it's purpose ? I did try with quotations, and finding them is rather difficult, or at least finding up-to-date ones that are accurate is difficult, Obama is not helping me here, should I email him ? lol. Then there are cold war age quotes that nobody likes, but thats the honest origin of the ISS, One russian space station was outfitted with a cannon, it's strange yes, but it's a fact. It's not as easy to go pin down Obama and say 'what are you doing with the iss and why, in ten words or less' but writing up 'it is to be used in relation to Mars missions' is absolutely factually incorrect. I can't see any way to knock off the big two WHO and WHY in a shorter way, AND still be factually correct AND respect all partners (except canada, Happy to leave them out, lol), and I look to any advice you have regarding a solution. Oh keep in mind the intro did have a longer listing of all partners and agencies originally, so the first paragraph is longer, but that later paragraph was seriously shortened by at least as much.

Also keep in mind other pages can't be looked to, to fill gaps in the introductions purpose it has to be self fulfilling of it's own purpose.

Deorbit, the links need fixing really, but as far as I can see it's appropriate, I wanted to immediately update that part using you suggestions, but the page you linked to offered me no ability to do so, as it says " “Now that the ISS partners have decided to keep the outpost operating beyond 2020,“ ". It gives me no firm date to improve on the new certification date all partners except russia are working towards, 2028. That was announced by all partners in Tokyo recently, I'll check the refs. Russia has no need to certify any of it's modules for that date, as they (a) don't have an expiry date and (b) are designed from the start to be capable of refurbishment.

Heavens-above 'Just because its used as a ref doesn't mean it needs a description in the article.' -agreed. You don't address my other 'over-riding' reason though, which I still believe is very important. It's the same reason that the article has illustrations really, so people can have a look at it. I think it's a small but very important reference, plus I agree the naked eye reference is important too, I've updated the wording to reflect that. The Heavens-above reference is about half a line, nobody is making a buck out of it, it's not for profit, the link is to the wikipage, not the site, I can't see the need to hide what so many of us use so regularly from the newbies who come to read the page. We may well be their one and only reference for the subject, I can't see the problem with inspiring them really. Do you really still object to it, on the grounds it's dead wood ?Penyulap _talk 15:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I've reworked some more, I think it's now a fast, easy read, I hope I have addressed everyones concerns, avoided language average readers will have trouble with (more about reading speed than not understanding specific words) and answered the big 7... Who What Where When Why Which How ? How does everyone feel about the current opening ? I wish someone would remove the word 'toilet' but other than that I think it's spot-on. Penyulap _talk 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Russian progress - You don't have to include it in this article since there's a Roscosmos page. This is off topic but with the exception of Zarya forward Russia doesn't currently use APAS, the system that is compatible with the Chinese docking system. The only open APAS docking ports on the ISS are the PMAs on USOS, but after the Shuttle program ends NASA will use a CDA to dock future vehicles (Dragon, CST-100, MPCV...) to the station, this new system is not compatible with APAS. The CDA uses the International Docking System Standard (IDSS) compliant NASA Docking System (NDS).

Partner's objectives - I think the purpose section might be good enough to describe the partner's objectives. As you mention its hard to find out what each partner's true objectives which also always seems to be changing and depends on who you ask, so I think the best thing to do in the article is simply list whats in the memorandum of understanding.

Deorbit - Just because the ISS is being certified to run until 2028 doesn't mean it will, it all depends on whether or not the partners agree to fund it that long, which they haven't yet.

Heavens-above - Its just not needed to describe the International Space Station and its something that's very easy to find.

Criticism - Are you fine with the removal of criticism from the intro?

--Craigboy (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ye gods, what's happened to the lovely elegant lead we had?! The current lead is horrific! :-O Colds7ream (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Penyulap gets colds7ream a nice hot cup of tea and ushers him to a comfy chair) there there you poor thing, you've had a terrible shock ! drink this and you'll feel better.

Partner's objectives I actually originally thought that the purpose section was superfluous (it's growing on me), but the purpose section or a historical section such as origins may be the best place for the original memorandum of understanding, it's more than a decade old and policies have changed many times since. It's misleading at best. I think purpose has to be in the intro to answer the WHY, and there is no easy way to do that without mentioning, however briefly, the partners who have such radically different purposes for the station. Seriously, they have such completely different directions. The US, or NASA at least is winding up it's manned space program and ESA Russia (and china) are going full speed on course to MARS. So a decade old NASA statement saying they are preparing to goto mars isn't consistent with Obamas policy. It's misleading.

Mars is still the objective for NASA. I don't see how RKA, ESA and CNSA "are going full speed on course to MARS". But we're not going to have that debate here.--Craigboy (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Programs that are in progress such as OPSEK and MARS500, what else is the point of Mars500 ? Certainly agree with you about debating, I'm not interested in conflict, just observations. I observe works in progress. And I'm not going to argue with anyone ! I seek agreement with you, and if you think I am wrong I want to know why and what so I can find out. Like the Docking adapters you told me about, all I knew was they got them from Russia more than a decade ago, I assumed back then they were soyuz adapters, but thats not the case. Cool. Just edit my knowledge like a wikipage and we'll both be better for it. I MUST, in my opinion, find consensus with YOU and colds7ream and all other wikieditors, every single one, as we all share the workload against vandalism, and it can't help us if we consider each others work as such can it ? Penyulap _talk 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deorbit Naturally everything is dependent upon funding and that's not a long addition to make 'funds allowing' :) however the old dates, which I had changed, simply didn't reflect the latest meeting of the partners in tokyo, which wasn't mentioned or referenced at all. The date of 2028, I am certain you have seen in my refs by now is the Goal-line that has been set, being aunty Zarya's 30th Birthday. We can say Russia is saying 'well of course' and Europe is saying 'we'll look into it' and The US is saying (scotty voice) 'I Downt thank the soalar panels caan taake anymore' (sorry to the scots out there) yes, the solar array's gears are basically crap, and will need replacement, which raises a who will bring them to orbit question. (If they don't fix the panels, Russia will launch it's power modules that are in the 'cancelled' basket atm) Please do as you wish with the dates, the Russians are fine with 2028, everyone else is working on it, the US is 'Woah just let me get my head together for the next 5 minutes.' Your welcome to the job you make of keeping track of every conflicting US policy between here and 2030, yeah good luck with that, I'll keep it up to date on ESA certification, can't see that one being a problem, and Russian certification ? OMG it's so totally done already.

You realize certification is not an agreement to continue the ISS program to 2028? You are incredibly misinformed when it comes to the US program and even more misinformed on the programs of ESA and RKA.--Craigboy (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm far too reality-centric and don't watch enough TV it's terrible :P Sorry ! :) But Russia's space program is not about to come to a grinding halt, there are no signs and no reasons for that to happen, it hasn't faltered since the revolution, and it has a direction, whatever it may be. I don't understand what you refer to as 'misinformed' ? I'm just going on credible sources almost all of which are online.. Certification is a requisite step towards a future agreement, a partner can't agree to something without first knowing if it is possible. Thats certification, knowing everything is shipshape to continue. Russia's program is as healthy as ever, asked for more rockets to replace shuttles, they just put them on the table without a moments hesitation, ramping up their program just like that. It's vibrant and healthy. Penyulap _talk 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the 'Removing statement placed next to a false source, Penyulap you need to stop doing this I'll take credit where it's due for the "Russia has plans to keep the station on orbit until 2028" that sounds like me, and I'm sure it was. But the BBC reference you refer to I'm sure is not mine. If it's 'false' and it's next to my statement, it's probably because I try not to mess with other peoples refs, I try not to delete them, at least not without good reason. If there is a problem with that BBC page, please don't direct it at me without looking up who added it in the first place. I don't think that was me. I haven't seen that page before, and checking my browser history it only comes up today.

Edit in question Because you placed it in front of the source it looked like you were sourcing the statement with it. If it wasn't intentional than I'll give you some leeway.--Craigboy (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

don't worry about it, no worries.Penyulap _talk 00:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism 4 sure !!! lets lose it. It's not significant, I'd support that.

Heavens-above 'something that's very easy to find.' but not easy enough in this article from the 'self contained all a newbie needs' point of view, please oh please I beg of you leave me my half a sentence, think of the children !!!!!

The children can use google to find the appropriate web applet.--Craigboy (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They can find everything on google and we won't need a wikipage ? which brings me to ask, did Chris Peat from heavens above steal your money/wife/car ? is it the lazing about non-profit thing ? I don't like the way he's all quiet and snooty either. You can tell me I promise. ....Each partner's website can tell you where to look, but heavens-above is independent and therefor neutral, what about that angle ? Penyulap _talk 06:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok so long-suffering colds7ream has popped up the Wiki Lead standards thingy, so lets have a rundown....

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.-check.

It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable,-check

(I've added the context of the ISS amongst space stations, I thought the Magnitude addition was worth the additions also)

...and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.-fail

The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources,

and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.--check

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead should nevertheless not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. -checkThe lead should contain no more than four paragraphs,-fail (omg so totally my fault there sorry) must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.-check it's as easy to read as it's going to get, though I can't speak everyone's dialect. And from the start, I've been trying to make it as neutral as possible with varying success...

Ok so fail because of too many sentences and the controversy is going (and good riddance I'm with you on that craigboy) thats what I can see for problems, what can you guys can see in the lead as it stands ?..

(now after all that, lets see if poor colds7ream is alright, maybe we can get him to say a few words about the intro, if he's over the shock yet)Penyulap _talk 00:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh and my vote on the number of paragraphs, having another look, I say leave it as is for clarity and ease of reading. It's a long article, so a long intro I think is ok.Penyulap _talk 00:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd mentioned the chinese and opsek as part of a contextual description of the item 'ISS', I'll leave it as you have edited it, though I think context is a surrounding sort of thing. However, once the chinese one is up there, and it is getting close, I really think it needs a mention for context. OPSEK can be hosed, thats fine by me also. I'll support your edit as it stands.Penyulap _talk 06:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

actually it's better than mine, as your sticking with stations actually launched, which is a better rule, as plans for stations opens up a can of plans that goes back more than a century. well done.Penyulap _talk 06:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've merged paragraphs into what I'd think is a logical order. I did re-do the defining 'manned artificial satellite' back to the dictionary like definition of 'what is a space station' although, as a satellite, an interstellar space station is not a satellite, but it's the best I can come up with that is short and sweet. Maybe an interstellar colony is a ship not a station because it takes a journey. Whatever.

Still waiting on colds7ream's input, maybe he is busy in RL or too wise to get into the bustle and ruckus. I'm not touching the rework template, it's like an Indiana Jones arc of the covenant, a high priest can touch it, everyone else is struck dead. :)

I'll leave the expression of decommissioning dates to whosoever wants to do them, it's beyond me. I still really think the word 'toilet' shouldn't be in the opening... lol. (between you and I, I put it there. Like a chicken tied to helium balloons floating into a Ninja bar, someone has so got to kill that thing)Penyulap _talk 07:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed lead rewrite directive temporarily, as it's causing alarm, also, because I do honestly believe all wiki standards, except for critisism have been met, but look forward to Colds7ream's input and consensus. where are you ? :) hope you are well. Penyulap _talk 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I also take issue with Penyulap's rewrite of the lead section, and have rolled it back while discussion continues. The efforts are certainly appreciated, but there are a number of issues with the revised version and it is clear to me that the older version is stronger at present. As this is a featured article, it is important to maintain stability and as such I ask Penyulap to avoid simply restoring a personal version into the article until it can be resolved here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

'As of the conclusion of Expedition 15, 138 major science investigations had been conducted on the ISS. Scientific findings, in fields from basic science to exploration research, are published every month.[15]'

Wow, that is so old, it's like expedition 27 already. Looking at that I'm like, it has so got to DIE, any objections ? it's main contribution to the article when you read the context is just useless busywork that nobody wants to do, so wiping it out has my vote. Anyone want to adopt it ? No ? -and keep the link by moving it somewhere else.. Penyulap _talk 21:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the old introductory paragraph.

• It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.

Old intro doesn't give the context of this space station in relation to other space stations.

• The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view.

Old intro gave one partners objective, which was outdated and contrary to Obamas current space policy. Matching, outdated soviet/russian objectives weren't tolerated very well, becoming a source of concern. Either updating the biased objective or adding other partners objectives was obvious.

'(It's an international project - such a nationalistic cold-war-ish statement should not be in the opening paragraph.)'

'(Removed the Russian lead in paragraph. Its an international program, Russia should not be the focus.)'

Bias of the old structure is the main issue for me. It's patently non-neutral. The fact it passes as being neutral is not because it is, I suggest it's a symptom of the dis-information Dsf has described perfectly tonight for all to see.

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

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

That's Yahoo and MSNBC spreading LIES about the ISS, and what army do we have fighting for neutrality ? Ever heard of friendly fire ? were not any cohesive force, were a mess.

Should we all just go for the NASA objective for the ISS, and pack up and go home on Neutrality, or give a 5 partner view of a 5 partner project ? I don't care which one is chosen, sure, if it's an american-centric consensus, I'll wish you all well and find better things to do than edit this part of wiki. Thats fine by me. This is not my bat and ball. If the consensus supports neutrality, I'll be in it. I'll want to listen to everyones concerns and support and help them in every way I can.

'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.) '

Ckatz, the edit summary is not a place where you'd be able to list any issues you have with the article, it's just a summary.

You made your reverts to the article and the work in progress without using the talk page first.

That's demoralizing.

You've dumped on the combined work of the people who are talking on the talk page, and THEN use the talk page.

Maybe I can consult a psychic about the 'but there are a number of issues with the revised version' you speak of. Or, maybe I just won't bother.

Discuss and work from here ? with who ? CraigBoy has been using the talkpage, you've been using the edit summary. You haven't used the talkpage for 6 months. Penyulap _talk 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this is all going, but I have no time to get involved in all this. Please be careful, it's an FA article, we wouldn't want it to loose that state. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, ok, i just did a quick read of the talk page, and I cannot agree more with graigsboy. Please, you really should get a bit more editing experience before you start just whacking away large parts of articles that are already of a high quality. And please try to be less emotional about the topic, it influences your writing too much. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree care should be taken with ANY article, including FA's. There have been positive responses as well as criticism regarding my contributions. I believe it is a fair statement to say that I do listen to what people have to say, and genuinely consider their point of view. I try to weigh each response and find it's merit. In deciding if I should continue to edit at all, or not, I weigh the overall contribution against the overall nuisance value of my editing. I don't make the decision to stop editing based upon one mistake or poor effort, or the decision to continue based upon on well received addition. When someone has an opinion to offer regarding whether or not I should continue editing, I try to determine if that persons opinion is based upon a single edit I have made, or if there is any evidence that person has considered at least a few of my contributions.

And yes, I totally agree I am emotional about the topic. I expect that is what drives every editor to the keyboard. Without a few editors who have passion about the ISS the article would probably be in the same state as Scientific research on the ISS, which seriously, I'm not so emotional about. I'd be more passionate in my apathy towards that article if I could, but I can't be bothered. I don't consider FA status to be a final destination any more than a moon landing. I'm one person who looks beyond.

I invite you to consider my overall contributions and give me you opinion of them. Based upon your standing within the wikipedia community, I'd weigh your opinion heavily as to whether or not I feel welcome here, and if my efforts are appreciated. Currently my contributions are indicative of my english language skills, and there would be no advance upon that, though I'll take more care in future editing the closer I get to the first sentence of the article. Not touching the lead since the dispute has been an eye-opener, people jump to revert the many people who edit 'being assembled' but 'completed on' in the next paragraph just sits there for much longer. In-depth reading of the article seems consistent with people who have in-depth knowledge of the subject, and so improvements there are more widely accepted, or at least disputed for sensible, considered reasons.

p.s. if an opinion of my bias on the topic is offered, I'd have to consider the persons own bias on the topic as a reference point for their observations. Penyulap _talk 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, I've neglected to thank you for your assistance. Thank you.

(i disagree. They were proposed space stations. Granted, not well developed plans, but still proposed. Might need a ref though.) I must admit I did not research the origins of Columbus and Kibo, I had assumed they were not space station projects. I should have checked first.Penyulap _talk 12:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead, poll, whats good, whats not.?

1 The International Space Station (ISS) is a manned, artificial satellite is an internationally developed research facility being constructed in low Earth orbit.

A space station is a manned artificial satellite, it says that on the space station page and doesn't need to be listed here. --Craigboy (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A perfect article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles.Penyulap _talk 15:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is spacestation a term that really needs to be defined here?--Craigboy (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Think of words that describe only the space station, and assemble them into a brief description. 'is an internationally developed research facility' could be anywhere, plus, it's more than that. 'that is being assembled in low Earth orbit' is unique. manned artificial satellite is unique. What is it that defines the space station as different to everything else ? how can we best describe it, clearly, short and unique? , or, if there is no advance on the suggestion, which do you think is more suitable ? Penyulap _talk 22:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I like what the article currently describes it as (research facility).--Craigboy (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool, then I'm happy for it to remain as it is. It's a flop of an idea. Next ! lolz Penyulap _talk 15:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still happy with it, though I stumbled upon an article I think helps articulate my thinking, it's called Essentialism and has this lead sentence for example ..

'Anthropology professor Lawrence Hirschfeld gives an example of what constitutes the essence of a tiger, regardless of whether it is striped or albino, or has lost a leg. The essential properties of a tiger are those without which it is no longer a tiger. Other properties, such as stripes or number of legs, are considered inessential or 'accidental'.

So what I was trying (poorly) to articulate before, is the ISS would still be the ISS without it's science, but wouldn't be the ISS if it was the 15th to 18th floor of a building at a university.. but it's a moot point..Penyulap _talk 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2 The ISS is an international effort with 5 partners, who all carry out scientific research on-board the ISS in diverse fields. See Scientific research on the ISS.

3 Current objectives vary, (space agencies in alphabetical order)

• CSA. Canada provides robotics.
• ESA. Europe develops spaceship navigation, propulsion and docking.
• JAXA. Japan concentrates on research in material and life sciences, also liberal arts and education with the largest laboratory in 6 elements spanning 3 segments.

"with the largest laboratory in 6 elements spanning 3 segments" a more uselessly meaningless description I have not seen for some time.Eregli bob (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I'm glad to have you onboard ! I suspect if it's back to my original '6 elements spanning 3 modules It'll still suck? no problem. I no poet or technical writer. But if you want to take a stab at it, I'll be happy to help. For the Japanese, it is all about science, and I don't mean 'oh and while we're there, we should shut up the scientists who are going on and on about the wasted opportunity to do some whatever it is they do, give them some egg into a bottle experiment or something to keep them quiet, look into it' sort of thing. No, I mean it's more like we have cartoons and they have ANIME and then, after they dumped all over us, they created MANGA and dumped all over us all over again, then sent Godzilla backed up by Neon Genesis evangellion to dump all over us again -sort of thing. The thought they have put into this thing is incredible, and the scope of the science is breathtaking, and then, I'm looking it over and they're into Liberal arts as well, some spiraling light robot thingy or something, I dunno, sure it looks pretty, but who understands these artist types anyhow? Just goto the JAXA site, or google, and have a look at what they are doing up there. or if anyone can find a statement of their objectives, use that.

So to be quite reasonable my description sucks, we can fix that, and please help. Now the other issue I'd like your opinion about is the changed structure of the opening, which makes it easy to edit Japans objective for the ISS separate to the NASA and RSA objectives, is that an idea that you understand and support ? or should we stick with 'The objective of the ISS, as defined by NASA, ' and 'The objective of the ISS, for the RKA, ' keeping in mind that the Russian objective being mentioned will get attacked every week or so. Although I am sure someone can come up with a better wording to reduce it, it is still going to get attacked.

(Removed the Russian lead in paragraph. Its an international program, Russia should not be the focus.)

This editor just removed it without noticing the Irony of his statement, his editing left NASA as 'the focus', even though 'Its an international program'. p.s. I just checked who it was, and SORRY Craigboy, I'm not trying to bag you here, your helping a lot with this article. But that strengthens my point, if someone like Craigboy can do it, what chance do we have against general viewers of the US media who we can't expect to be as cautious ?

So it would in future get vandalized often, and comes back to a MSNBC/Yahoo viewpoint which is fundamentally against Neutrality.Penyulap _talk 15:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• NASA. The United States provides the Space Shuttle, and develops life support systems in accordance with current policy.
• RKA. Russia continues development of spacecraft considered by many as the safest, and all space stations systems, required for manned exploration of other worlds.

4 The ISS is a synthesis of several space station projects that include the American Freedom, the European Columbus, the Japanese Kibō and the Russian / Soviet space station program, which has maintained an average of at least one space station on orbit since 1971 see space stations. Budget constraints led to the merger of these projects into a single multi-national programme.

5 The ISS follows the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and MIR space stations, as the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity. Space stations such as Genesis I and II are not intended to be inhabited by humans. On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 and is scheduled for completion by mid-2012.

6 The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2020, and potentially to 2028.

7 Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye.7A Websites such as Heavens-Above provide instructions. 7 It is especially easy because of the ISS's Apparent magnitude. After the Sun, Magnitude -27 and Moon -13, the ISS -6 is the brightest object in the sky, ahead of Venus -5, Jupiter -3 and Mars -3. This excludes short-lived phenomenon such as Bolides and Iridium flares.

8 The station is divided into two main sections, the Russian Orbital Section (ROS) and the United States on-Orbit Segment (USOS). The ROS handles Guidance, Navigation & Control for the entire Station, primary propulsion and primary life support. The USOS contains the largest laboratory, JAXA's Kibo, NASA's Destiny lab, ESA's Columbus lab and 2,500 Sq meters of solar panels to power them, along with additional life support (Oxygen generators) and a second toilet. The station is maintained at an orbit between 278 km (173 mi) and 460 km (286 mi) altitude, and travels at an average speed of 27,743.8 km/h (17,239.2 mph), completing 15.7 orbits per day.

9 The ISS can maintain orbit and perform maneuvers autonomously. Expedition crews, from safe minimum of two, to seven upon completion, have so far maintained an uninterrupted human presence in orbit since the launch of Expedition 1 on 31 October 2000, a total of 23 years and 192 days. The programme thus holds the current record for the longest uninterrupted human presence in space, surpassing the previous record of ten years, set aboard Mir (3,644 days). The station is serviced by Soyuz spacecraft, Progress spacecraft, Space Shuttle, the Automated Transfer Vehicle and the H-II Transfer Vehicle, and has been visited by astronauts and cosmonauts from 15 different nations. As of March 2011, the station consists of fifteen pressurised modules and an extensive integrated truss structure (ITS). The ownership and use of the space station is established in intergovernmental treaties and agreements that allow the Russian Federation to retain full ownership of its own modules in the Russian Orbital Segment, with the US Orbital Segment, the remainder of the station, allocated between the other international partners.

Like/dislike yes/no please feel free to comment...?Penyulap _talk 21:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to change the date information from 23 years and 192 days to I think an easier format 23 years, 6 months and 10 days. At this point, I'd like to see all changes above except 1 and 7A implemented. However I'm not touching the opening paragraph at the moment even for the most basic reasons, like 'completed' I'll leave it all to someone else, or until the articles major contributor colds7ream returns from RL to offer his opinion.Penyulap _talk 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lead has been updated to a draft-level version of the above, and I'm fixing up refs before moving on to polishing up the lead. The following issues have been addressed ..

• A space station is a manned artificial satellite, it says that on the space station page and doesn't need to be listed here.
• "with the largest laboratory in 6 elements spanning 3 segments" a more uselessly meaningless description I have not seen for some time.
• Criticism - Are you fine with the removal of criticism from the intro?
• Heavens-above - Its just not needed to describe the International Space Station
• gives a 5 partner view of a 5 partner project, is slightly more resistant to unhelpful editing.
• 'overall consistency'

In regards to overall consistency with the remainder of the article, it is not as large a problem as it was when the discussion opened. The parts of the new lead I have authored are consistent in style and prose with other additions to the article that I have also authored. The article has had some additions to it, which I have authored, since the time the discussion first opened. The overall consistency of the proposed lead in regards to the remainder of the article has therefore changed slightly. I would therefore suggest the problem of consistency is slightly smaller. I would be pleased and welcome any suggestions about any particular sentences, I would welcome even more if people simply go ahead and edit it themselves in a constructive manner, that is, making specific changes to anything they feel needs fixing, rather than reverting large portions of the article, containing material which they have no problem with.

In regards to poor grammar, punctuation or spelling I will not address such concerns myself, I ask for help in this regard. However, to preempt any suggestion that the new lead should be overturned for this reason, I would like to point out that spelling grammar and punctuation are not a legitimate reason to revert material, further, if there is any such rule, I will ignore it under WP:IAR guidelines. Penyulap _talk 02:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest to anyone who thinks Canada is not a good place to start with the list of partners, or wants NASA to be more prominent, they could rearrange the list using country names, instead of partner names, and it would still have all 5 partners listed in a neutral manner.Penyulap _talk 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Index / Category Cleanup

Please be aware that the category cleanup may cause problems with other articles that link into the ISS page, I'm going to do a safari to find those and fix them, if your aware of any problems please let me know so I can fix them, or feel free to edit them, or change that category back...

5 Station operations

• 5.1 Expeditions
• 5.2 Visiting spacecraft

• • 5.2.1 Docking
  • 5.2.2 Currently docked
  • 5.2.3 Scheduled to be docked in 2011

If possible I'd like to simplify the last one to

• • 5.2.3 Docking schedule

But that's not to suggest any changes to any editors policy on how they edit their section, it's just a suggestion relating to the title, that's all.

However I'll wait a few days at least before making such a minor change to such frequently edited sections, enquire if it will be a nuisance to those editors who maintain the page.

Any comments or concerns?, is anything else out of place? Penyulap _talk 15:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

actually I just wp:bb because with 2011 in the text, it can't be linked to very well.. Penyulap _talk 00:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Inclination

Whilst on the subject of sightings RadioFan, the part you edited in the sightings section "The ISS orbits at an inclination of 51.6 degrees to Earth's equator, necessary to ensure that Russian Soyuz spacecraft launched the the Baikonur Cosmodrome are capable of reaching the station.[132] While this orbit makes the station visible from most points on Earth, it is not visible from extreme northern or southern latitudes." I object to, as it implies that the Russian Soyuz is not capable of reaching the station in other orbits, which is not correct. It's a very flexible craft with a relatively high flight ceiling and can reach the harder-to-get-to orbit of 71 which is proposed for opsek. I can't agree with the use of 'capable', or 'necessary to ensure' without additional refs that support that. 'capable' is not the word the space elevator bloke used, I read some of his book (incidentally I think he missed out some interesting things, he should have outlined how tethers can interact with the magnetosphere to provide spacecraft propulsion for satellites, and emphasized that tethers are going to be more successful in use around the moon, because it has almost no debris, but he was being brief and non-technical). I do want to support you if you can write up how the orbit effects launches from all the launch sites, such as french guiana and japan as well as russia and america. Basically, the higher the inclination or payload the more fuel is needed (or less payload) thats why reboosting the station is delayed for weeks until just after a shuttle mission, it's to let the ISS drop low and let the shuttle carry more cargo. The ATV and HTV are heavy vehicles like the shuttle, but the soyuz is the lightest, 'it's not a truck' as the astronaut on his way up said the other day on tv. It has only one purpose, to carry people. Actually the crew seemed really overwhelmed when they spoke of it, saying how 'this craft' had only a single purpose, it was built 'for us' or did he say 'for me' ? well, anyhow he seemed to be having a religious experience about it being tailored especially to him, which it is. Anyhow, point is, it's the lightest of all manned spacecraft in use and has the greatest operational ceiling. The extra fuel it doesn't use flows back and forth into the space station automatically through the russian docking ports, the station is like a petrol station for the spacecraft, so extra fuel is offloaded into zaryas fuel tanks. Penyulap _talk 21:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be worded a bit differently if it is implying some slight on the Russians or the Soyuz but 51.6 was selected to accomodate launches from Baikonur. Its a compromise to ensure that the shuttle, Soyuz, and Progress can safely reach the station. You are correct that the Soyuz is a flexible craft that can reach many orbits but that doesn't mean it can reach all orbits safely. Baikonur is limited in availability trajectories to avoid dropping spent stages in the wrong places. Actually, If NASA were the only agency launching to the station, the inclination would have been much lower, to maximize payload capacity. An additional reference and a rewording to make it clear that the issue with the soyuz is that the inclination was chosen to ensure safe launch. I trust this will resolve the concerns above.--RadioFan (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the rewording too, But that is a brilliant ref, I'd like to see the 75% or 95% used in the new text, and I wasn't aware of the China thing, though I know the crew on a previous soyuz were worried about landing in there, when one of the designers who was aboard at the time yelled at mission control to hit the abort button(there wasn't one aboard at that time) after sections didn't separate properly.. They landed really heavily, survived though, but were very worried about where they were going to land....man it's one he oops incredible craft. Anyhow, it would be good to mention the relative orbits and so forth, of all spacecraft in the program, for neutrality. Probably goes into the orbit section, and your new-found 75% and 95% go into sightings. That'd be my suggestion. I support that ref. Penyulap _talk 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea on the bit about 95% of the Earth's inhabited land being overflown, it's been added to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict, sorry the above was replying to your original... anyhow, yes your right about the US-only inclination, but freedom never got past mockup, and america only got to first generation stations rather than 3rd generation stations, If it was russian only it would be 71 degrees inclination, which OPSEK will use, but they aren't going to change the inclination of the station until after the Russian modules or the ISS ROS like Nauka are removed, then just those modules will have trajectories changes, I expect progress tugs will do that work, but I can't find it yet...

So I'd say it is a compromise between 71 and whats the US-only inclination ? If we can find refs for that we can settle a number of issues there.Penyulap _talk 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what good the 71 inclination would be in the article. It's 51.6 and the article explains why.--RadioFan (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

71 degrees is where most of the ROS modules will end up, or at least the bigger most important ones they don't want to scrap. Nauka will goto 71, I outlined it in new material in the new end of mission or deorbit sections, and references I've made to OPSEK somewhere or other.Penyulap _talk 01:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Again you are not making it clear what this has to do with the ISS.--RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, it relates to the End-of-life and De-orbit of the whole station. the station is divided into two parts, the Russian Orbital segment (ROS), which is a space station by itself, and the US orbital segment, which can't be used as a space station by itself, it would decay from orbit if separated from the ROS, and doesn't have complete life support functionality. Once the USOS becomes too hard to maintain, or the partners are unwilling or unable to maintain it, the ROS will be removed and flown away to an orbit of 71 Degrees inclination. Some of it's minor modules may be discarded by the Russians and replaced with new ones, but large expensive ones in good order won't be. The Nauka module of the ISS will be moved into the 71 degree orbit. The USOS will be discarded. I know this aspect of the ISS may be something people do not wish to think about, it makes me wonder what will happen to the JAXA modules, and inspires me to research about their future plans, but End-of-mission is part of the ISS.

I wonder if it has cultural parallels ? some people don't like talking (or thinking) about death, and some people talk about it in a civilized way. Is it a reflection on different societies treatment of their elderly population ? I often think the Ganges River, which is worshiped by, and fundamental to, the population around it, has parallels like that, as capitalism pollutes and corrupts the people, it does the same to the river. Penyulap _talk 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Brightness in the Earth's shadow

The article suggests that it is invisible in the shadow, but this isn't true. I've seen it on numerous occasions with binoculars, and I would estimate the brighness to be about +7 or +8 when overhead, deep into the shadow. Now, there aren't many reports of such observations, so it is not easy to find appropriate sources for this.

What is clear is that it is very plausible that the ISS is visible in binoculars, as you can easily calculate that just few tens of Watts of the interior lighting escaping is enough to make it bright enough to be visible in binos. I'm not suggesting we include this in Wikipedia right now, it's just an interesting thing to look into. Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats a fair statement, and the thinking is clear, but think I was giving instructions on how most people can view the ISS, without the use of equipment, possibly I didn't make it clear enough that the ISS disappears into the earths shadow when you are not using equipment.Penyulap _talk 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and its also difficult to base this on good sources, so it is something to think about, search for in sources, rather than make an editing issue of it right now. It's similar to this issue I raised about Neptune. Theoretically, Neptune is a naked-eye object, but only under optimal conditions. But so far no-one has succeeded in spotting it, so it would be a bit of a stretch for Wikipedia to say that it can be seen with the naked eye. But it's something to watch out for; I've read that Brian Skiff is going to try again :). Count Iblis (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of when I was a child, laying on the grass at lunchtime at school, I saw some objects so tiny, at such an enormous distance straight overhead, slowly moving in a line, about 3 or 4 of them, I am certain now that they were pieces of space debris. Now, I can hardly recognize people across the road. I studied and researched very hard to find a way to point out to the teachers, who are the ones who may read the page and set the lesson, that although they may not be capable of seeing the ISS the kids may well be able to. I had put a lot of thought into it, and research too, and it's not really reflected in the final sentence I wrote after all that, which pitifully hints at it this way...

Heavens-Above is a not-for-profit website which can provide times and direction details for teachers, students and the public. Whilst the ISS is best viewed after sunset, and before sunrise, the ISS is bright enough to see during school hours in 'daytime passes' depending upon the visual acuity of the observers, weather conditions, station attitude (not altitude) in relation to observation point and the apparent magnitude of the ISS during the pass.

I don't know if it's much good, but it ties in precisely with what you are saying, Visual acuity is required to be capable of seeing these incredibly faint objects during daylight. Just because the teacher can't see it doesn't prove it's not there. I think Brian would be better off searching for a person with excellent visual acuity instead of neptune. The page has to be written with everyone in mind, young, old, people who can see the ISS in the daytime, and people who are blind. The images have 'alt' descriptions, you can see the ones I have added for images I have inserted for solar array detail, the ISS photographed by Ralf Vandeberg, and many other pictures have alt descriptions for the blind, but not all of them, you see, there is an enormous amount of work to be done here, and it all needs such great care and attention to detail. When I'm using search engines to research, I often come across websites that have lifted and copied off this article, which is public domain, it's not just the 3,000 people a day who read it here, it's echoed across many other sites as well. The information has to be checked and researched thoroughly first. Unfortunately I sometimes forget where I saw or read a particular piece of information. It took me ages to find ' The Russian orbital segment handles Guidance, Navigation & Control for the entire Station.' now it seems so obvious, and the source is perfect, but it just wasn't here on the page and nobody knew, if you look at the old talk pages. Just keep reading and researching and finding out everything, follow links, and find things that are missing so we can put them in. Is looking at the ISS from the ground astronomy? or is only looking at the moon and stars astronomy ? I do not know, I think it is, but it's not on the astronomy page, or the astrophotography page either, neither one has any mention of any artificial satellites at all. I've asked in those talkpages, but there is more research to be done for those definitive answers and to update those two articles, which, when you look at them, look perfect, but don't answer such a fundamentally simple question. There is a lot of work to do here. Just to answer the question should the sightings section have see also astronomy, or not, is a good amount of work, I hope experts can answer it and I'll have that part done for us... Penyulap _talk 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude in Sighting section

(inserted note) The Magnitude of the ISS is sourced from the apparent magnitude article. It's currently stated at -5.9 and is rounded off to -6 occasionally in this article. The following long conversation was created mostly because of my poor memory, I apologize to all involved, and for the clutter I created. I simply couldn't recall where I got the final figure from after researching and writing. Penyulap _talk 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please edit directly under this text to add your support or objection to the use of figures from the magnitude page. I abstain. Penyulap _talk 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are better references pending on Magnitude, it will be updated onto the Magnitude page as well if it all checks out, but it will effect the wording in comparison to Venus, and may well see some more temporary additions to the 'media' section. I hope CountIblis will clarify all this. Penyulap _talk 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• Oppose. Other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources (this is explicitly states in WP:IRS). The apparent magnitude article cites this heavens-above page as their source, which actually states the maximum brightness is -5.7.. which tells me the apparent magnitude article is out of date, and heavens-above has revised its calculation. Mlm42 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, there's this universetoday article which says the ISS is the second brightest object in the night sky.. it's not clear how they arrive at this conclusion, but it seems like a reliable source to me. Mlm42 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your absolutely right. I am waiting on Chris Peat's response and will update the Magnitude, ISS pages and I expect Chris will update his site as well. We still need a new definitive figure, I don't mind if it is one site, so long as it is well explained. Penyulap _talk 17:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that accordding to Universe Today, the ISS went from less bright than Venus to brighter than Venus due to the added solar panels in 2009, which suggests that the maximum brightness is somewhere in the range between -4 to -5 (Calsky.com gives a maximum possible brightness of -5, the brighness they give for passes of the ISS are a bit larger than what Heavens-Above gives for the same passes). The meaning of the -6 figures that are sometimes given is not always clear; the ISS is never that bright. These are either theoretical figures that are never achieved (Heavens-Above I think does mention this somewhere), or they are old estimates of how bright the ISS would eventually get when completed according to the original plans (the ISS will become far smaller than what was planned originally).

So, I would urge caution on using the magnitude -6 figures that are sometimes found in some sources. Note also that the ISS would be easily visible during daytime if it were -6 and that was exactly what you can read in old sources dating back to the late 1990s that were looking forward to the completion of the ISS. But in reality, while you can see it in broad daylight conditions, it's a tour de force being perhaps just a bit brighter than Venus (see e.g. here how difficult that is and people who have experience in spotting the ISS during broad daylight conditions won't tell you that spotting that is much easier, so it's clearly not magnitude -6). Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Click here to skip to the next section, Inclination

Count Iblis, please use the talkpage rather than the edit summary to express the reasons why you have changed Radiofan's editing of my text about magnitude.

I support Radiofans alteration of my text on the whole, except for the use of the word 'rivaled' (the ISS is not trying to, or designed to compete with the sun or moon) other satellites have used reflective surfaces to light up some northern hemisphere towns i recall, or have been proposed with a few tests.

Also 'with a maximum apparent magnitude when directly overhead of -3.8, slightly less bright than Venus.' may only be correct for your viewing position, but I can't help you further as you have not included a reference, which is necessary. Also 'less bright' I think could be improved upon.

I'd support the use of 'approximate magnitude of ' or 'approximate apparent magnitude' if that helps reach consensus.

Penyulap _talk 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude -6 is the theoretical maximal magnitude, but as explained on the Heavens-Above website, this is never reached. The orientation of the solar panels are regulated so that they are always at right angles to the incoming solar rays. This causes a large amount of light to be reflected back to the Sun and not to the Earth; explaining why you never get close to the maximum theoretically possible magnitude of -6. I don't know about other good sources for this, perhaps some astronomy magazine would do, but I don't read those.

Magnitude -6, b.t.w. would make the ISS easily visible during Noon, while in reality it is always difficult to spot during broad daylight conditions. So, it should be clear that -6 cannot possibly be correct.

Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude -6 is correct but it is also a maximum (-5.9 actually, the Hayden Planetarium article rounded down for some reason) and the article has been updated to reflect this. The Heavens Above site confirms this. Did you have concerns about Heavens Above or the Hayden Planetarium as reliable sources? Let's also keep in mind that these are apparent magnitudes which are normalized so no a -6 would not necessarily be easily visible during noon. Conditions (both atmospheric and orientation of station) have to be close to ideal to see a daylight pass. Since this section is focused on the brightness and other comparable objects (Sun, Venus, etc.) are expressed in terms of their maximums, it makes sense to express the ISS's maximum. --RadioFan (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good to have you on the talkpage Count Iblis ! Welcome ! You are correct about it being a maximum magnitude, it varies a lot depending on a great many conditions. It actually can flare up to -8 I'll try to find you the sources for that, so you can read them for yourself, if you don't find it faster on google that is. Heavens above is a great source of info, I'd call it impeccable, but Chris Peat can't update everything thats not really relevant to his site, I've spoken with him when soliciting for images to be released into the public domain for use on wikipedia, and I see no reason why we can't assist him to update his site when we have found a wide ranging consensus on the magnitude or how it is actually best measured. I had the -5.9 figure and support it's use or -6, I had rounded off -5.9 and all magnitudes to the nearest when comparing it to the the sun moon and planets in my recent cleaning up. I support hayden as a reference, and heavens above is used extensively by many editors on this article already, as well as widespread across the 'spacey' communities. Penyulap _talk 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but -6 is completely wrong, as it would make the ISS appear to be way brighter than it actually is. It's a useless figure for how bright it would be if it were to reflect all the incident sunlight to Earth, which never happens. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Peat does say " As a rough guess, it might reach magnitude -3 at its best, " but look at the date, it's pre- STS-97 so that's old, like I said, he can't update everything, so it's a good source for pre sts-97 levels only. Penyulap _talk 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

". The orientation of the solar panels are regulated so that they are always at right angles to the incoming solar rays. This causes a large amount of light to be reflected back to the Sun and not to the Earth; explaining why you never get close to the maximum theoretically possible magnitude of -6." -I like that, you may not have been meaning to, but you just wrote perfect text suitable for the article. Penyulap _talk 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok., but note that the brightness of the ISS as given in the table of passes is quite accurate. Also, you don't have to limit yourself to only Heavens-Above, other websites (e.g. calsky.com) also give information on brightness (calsky gives a higher brighness of -4.6 I think, but that's still way dimmer than -6). So, if you just pick a pass that brings the ISS overhad, it will give you the maximum brightness. You'll see that this doesn't strongly depend on your location, the hight of the Sun below the sky etc. etc., the brighness is only afected by a few tenths of a magnitude by these factors.

Also, note that the reason why its difficult to see under broad daylight conditions is precisely because it is about magnitude -4. Then you really need clear blue skies, no haze etc. etc. If it were magnitude -6, then such factors wouldn't matter much, it would be readily visible during Noon, it would be hard to miss. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It is visible at noon, under some circumstances, 'daytime passes' they're called, I'm not sure just how 'hard to miss' they are, I haven't looked or researched, I don't think I'd support phrases like "The ISS cut me off in traffic" just yet, (depends on who does the deorbit really) but if it is visible according to widespread sources during the daytime, is that enough ? I can find some sources for that if you like, if you can't google faster... ? Penyulap _talk 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Count, would you give us some examples of a better way of phrasing it, I'd love it if you are able to just blurt out perfect text once again, (I don't think it was a fluke). Something to point out it's relative visibility in comparison to everything else in the sky, but recognizing that it's not always the case, using words everyone can understand, and brief, for the lead.. RadioFan and I and other editors can find the refs for you, to show it's accuracy. Penyulap _talk 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok., I think we should also weaken the statement on brightness a bit as differences sources give differen figures (saying that it is -3.8 suggests a precision that isn't justified). Calsky.com gives a figure of -4.5 or so when it is overhead (while making the same statement about maximal theoretical brightness). So, perhaps the best thing to do is to say that its brighness is similar to that of Venus and then give a ref as a footnote where we say that the theoretical maximum brightness of about -6 is never reached in practice and then we say that more details can be found on websites such as Heaven-Above, Calsky etc. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just made an edit along these lines. It's best not to give details on the -6 figure, that's a red herring, the issue is more that there are various estimates for the brighness that is actually reached when it is in the zenith. Count Iblis (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

And those edits have been reverted. There is no consensus here that the -6 figure (now more accurately stated as -5.9) is problematic. Reliable sources for this information have been supplied if you have similarly reliable sources refuting it, then please share them here. Until then, please stop removing this section.--RadioFan (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes please everyone just use the talkpage as a scratchpad for writing out new fixes, as edit-warring behavior would support a request for review of the Feature article status. which is like more workload, and there is far too much work to do as it is, so just write things up, suggestions with the reasoning here, say what you support and what you don't and thats the consensus, once 2 or 3 editors say they support a sentence or ref, it's got consensus, and needs the same or more editors to overwrite it.

Penyulap _talk 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support an edit which made clear that typical brightnesses rarely exceed -2 but the -5.9 number should stay alongside comparisons to other bodies which are also expressed in maximums.--RadioFan (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please guys give me 5 minutes to go back over some of my research and find some refs for you, but read the section, just search for measured on the talkpage, Magnitude is something best measured, and the best refs will be astronomers, Chris Peat will tell you everything you need to know about which way to look at what satellite, or what that thing you thought was a UFO last thursday night was, but he doesn't look up and measure the magnitude of objects, he does prediction algorithms and programming and such..looking..Penyulap _talk 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I welcome any other (reliable) references but as you mention, Chris Peat's Heavens-Above is hard to beat. NASA, ESA JAXA agree as they link to as well as cite the Heavens-Above. If that site says the maximum mag is -6, I see no reason to doubt it and none have been offered here other than it's "obviously" false. It's coorborated by the Hayden Planetarium reference. Perhaps Count Iblis would like to explain to Neil deGrasse Tyson how his planetarium's website contains an "obvious" error. Until then let's follow the relavant guidelines here: Wikipedia:Disputed statement rather than removing the section entirely. We should also remember, especially difficult in the sciences, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--RadioFan (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some links to give you an idea, they all failed the grade for me, but you can use some of the language to feed back into search engines to find better...

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message802635/pg1 this one is a good link to an article that may be able to be found in an archive somewhere? like the internet archive maybe ? suggests -8

http://kendalastronomer.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/a-bit-of-satellite-watching/ no good http://www.disclose.tv/forum/nearby-asteroid-found-orbiting-sun-backwards-t3858.html -8, not bad. http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html pointing at -8

as you see, there is lots of work to do, but I was aiming at a conservative figure of -6 as a 'current' and reasonable maximum someone could be reasonably expected to observe, whereas some people are luckier being closer to the ground tracks, you should read up on the ground tracks of the iridium satellites, they are easier to predict. The solar panels on the station aren't rotated like clockwork, and they aren't all needed to operate at the same time as they don't always have load for them, because there aren't so many experiments going on. The reason the Russians haven't launched their science power platforms is there is just too much cheap electricity coming from the USOS's panels....Penyulap _talk 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the links above are making estimates and fail WP:RS as they are posts in blogs and forums.--RadioFan (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the Fanclub, I don't think I've been able to put the fanclub into the article, some of the new sections and material I put up and finished off have become firmly embedded into the article, I like how end of mission and de-orbit are at the end of the list of contents. Anyhow only some of the other works in progress have survived after I gave up on the page because of the troubles, I won't go into. Anyhow, there is the fanclub, which I haven't worked out where it rates a mention if at all, there is a link for it here, into the forum where sighting reports are listed and discussed... http://www.issfanclub.com/forum/46 Penyulap _talk 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the Fanclub is an appropriate addition. This is essentially a forum which does not meet sourcing guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, -6 is absolutely not what someone could reasonably expect to observe. Really, the problem is that one needs a little background in Astronomy to understand this, Googling cannot make up for a lack of that, because you then can't properly interpret what you read in sources.

The best thing to do is to work with sources that actually list the brightness of ISS passes and then write what they give for the typical brighness when it is overhead. That is clearly -4 and not -6. That the ISS can give flares up to magnitude -11 or so, can also be mentioned. Then -6 is the theoretical brightness which is never reached in practice, and that can be found in sources too, so there is little point in even mentioning the -6 figure. Also, everyone who knows a bit about astronomy knows that an object of magnitude -6 is readily visible during broad daylight conditions (Noon), you just need clear skies not necessarily perfect conditions. In reality the ISS is -4, which makes it difficult to spot during daytime (which is indeed the case, as can be found in numerous sources).

The problem with mentioning -6 is that it makes the section look quite ridiculous to people who know more about this, as it's an obviously false statement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the article states or implies that -5.9 is the what someone could reasonably expect to observe. That's not the intent of the article or the section. Wikipedia is not a guidebook after all. The section clearly states this number as a maximum and again, it's well sourced with very reliable sources. Any reasonable reader would understand the difference between maximum and typical. If you feel that this should be clarified with some material on typical values, I'd support that. Please propose some text here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes yes, I agree they all FAIL wprs, I'm giving them as a place for you guys to start research, if I could find the original one I used for the -6 I'd just mention it, actually, what kind of an idiot am I? we should just go back and check it, it's got to be in there before colds7ream rolled back the article, maybe it's good, maybe it's a fail too. Either way, the pages will help give everyone a better idea of what this whole magnitude thing is about, it's a measured thing, from the ground, by astronomers, not something dictated by NASA or Chris Peat, it's not their department. It's astronomy, or at least I'm sure it is, I asked the question on astronomy and astrophotography pages, as it's not mentioned on either of those pages yet, so hopefully I can get astronomy experts to tell me if satellite viewing is or is not astronomy, and who knows, maybe give me a definitive answer as to who determines magnitude, and how, and help phrasing it correctly. If there can't be consensus on magnitude thats ok to, because we don't need to find any particular figure, we just say 'the magnitude of the station is determined by astronomers, this observatory[1] reports it can be been as high as X' or 'the exact magnitude of the station varies, some report it as high as' and just go with good, well referenced observatories... something like that. like i mentioned before mass and magnitude cannot be calculated, they can only be measured. Penyulap _talk 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky Because both the moon, which wanes into a new moon, and the sun which sets, like the ISS can be variable, the ISS can be considered along those same lines, as the brightest object in the sky, sometimes, and we don't need to qualify it as sometimes, because the moon and sun don't need qualification either. Actually, it seems to be in there that way at the moment too... I just copied it. But thats the lead suggestion, and it should be explained in the sightings section more fully Penyulap _talk 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

More details can and should be given. After all, many people have been observing the ISS and a lot is known. That it is about -4 when overhead is a hard fact, so there is no reason not to mention this here. That it can be observed with quite some effort during broad daylight conditions is also an interesting fact to note (there are no other satelites that can be observed during daytime, except for the odd iridium flash). The figure of -6 does not refer to an actual brighness; it can be mentioned, but, of course, only when explaining what this means correctly. And then one can mention that the ISS can give extremely bright flashes.

I don't see what's so hard about writing up a paragraph that contains these elements. It's only the focus on some particlar text in a particular source (the -6 allegedly making the ISS the brightests object after the Sun and the Moon), that turns everything on its head. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for the Form of the sightings section, please consider it separate to the -6/-4 stuff, just the context.

It is especially easy to see the ISS without the use of equipment because of it's Apparent magnitude. After the Sun, Magnitude -27 and Moon -13, the ISS -X is the brightest object in the sky, ahead of Venus -5, Jupiter -3 and Mars -3. This excludes short-lived phenomenon such as Bolides and Iridium flares.

Any good? we can of course make the figures exact, but for form is there consensus ? X is a figure we can determine separately Penyulap _talk

It's not ok. as far as Venus is concerned because the sources don't agree on that. Heavens-Above's -3.8 is less bright but Calsky's -4.5 is brighter. So, if we want to represent what the sources say, we can say that the ISS is approximately as bright as Venus when overhead. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

agreed, as bright as Venus is a good way to put it, would you go further, because venus cannot flare, but the iss can, Venus has it's own orbit that can obscure it completely when the sun occults it, and the ISS's orbit can take it into positions where it will flare brighter than venus ? is that a fair line of thinking?Penyulap _talk 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's right, the ISS can flare and then it's brighter than Venus. I've read that these flares can be extremely bright, much brighter than Iridium flashes. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So would you agree with "Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky"

as a short way to say it ?

The problem I have with this is that it places the ISS after the Sun and the Moon, while it is close to Venus in brightness. The fact that it very rarely flashes should be mentioned separately (because these flashes happen very infrequently, it's not what you typically see when you observe the ISS). Saying that the brightness is similar that that of Venus conveys a lot more information about how bright the ISS actually is (most people have seen Venus). That only the Sun, Moon and possibly Venus are brighter can be mentioned in the next sentence.

Then we should look up the brightness of the flashes, if I remember correctly it can be -11 which is extremely bright, similar to the Moon. If that's the casse (I'm not sure about this), then saying that a flash can be a quarter of the the brighness of the full Moon would be an interesting fact to mention.

And guys, don't worry about the article, Count Iblis is wanting to help, not adding profanity and such to the talkpage, and Count, just discuss and edit here, until everyone agrees first, then the article can be changed. Otherwise it's problematic for readers if we use the article as a sketchpad. Lets please continue Penyulap _talk 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Basically the ISS is brighter, but like the moon, venus, and the sun, it does not reach it's maximum magnitude all the time as viewed from the observers location. But it is fundamentally the brightest object in the sky, second to the moon and sun, on a regular basis, excluding short-lived phenomenon such as iridium flares and bolides.? Penyulap _talk 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The apparent magnitude (m) of a celestial body is a measure of its brightness as seen by an observer on Earth, normalized to the value it would have in the absence of the atmosphere. The brighter the object appears, the lower the value of its magnitude. from the article Penyulap _talk 01:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud that is where I got the original figure from. the magnitude article. that's where it is, case closed on the figure for magnitude, i was correct at the beginning, and it's their headache not ours ! Sorry for the trouble my poor memory has given you guys...Penyulap _talk 01:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Be back soon!

Just to let everyone know my exams this year are this week, so I'll be back editing properly soon! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to offer sincerest best of luck on your exams. I look forward to you having more time to edit. Penyulap _talk 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Progress

I want to undo the redo of the old lead. I'm sorry Colds7ream, I have the deepest respect for your monumental past efforts but there many problems with the revert.

'take a deep breath, and count to ten.' -Directly from the wiki guidelines for exactly this situation

• There is broad consensus reached after a week of discussion on the talkpage.
• There are many issues with the old lead that have been addressed.
• There are many serious problems with the article if it stands the way you reverted it. Have you even read it?
• FA is not a destination, it's a milestone on a path that continues, Living in the past is not appropriate.
• Updating is required, the ISS project has not ground to a halt. It will not grind to a halt because the article reached FA status.

I spent a lot of time looking for the guidelines that say exactly this, to demonstrate moving on is not my idea, it's wiki ideal. Thats when I found the link above. I didn't find the part about moving on after FA in the guidelines anywhere, you know why ? after searching for ages to show you, I found it is at the top of this page.

Seriously if your just going to come back once a week or once a fortnight to go on living in the past and drag everyone else with you, without even reading what you are putting up there, then I can't be bothered updating the lead either, it's in the same crappy situation it is with MrClick who wouldn't articulate on the talkpage to save his life. Penyulap _talk 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, as I have been doing constant and consistent research into all aspects of the ISS over the last few months, which everyone can see, as I have been adding the latest information and updating existing information across all subjects, and in depth spending countless hours and soliciting new material for release into the public domain from many sources including JAXA, I can justifiably say as an expert on all the latest ISS matters in diverse fields, the lead is crap. That is my opinion. If you'd like to know why, or what is wrong with the lead, I've already done your homework for you while you were away and It's written above on the talkpage, or some of it is. Penyulap _talk 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are my manners, I forgot to wish you well in RL, I do look forward to working with you in future, when you decide to drop by again, and if you ever use the talkpage I'll be happy to work with you on improvements, if you ever think improvement is possible. In the mean time I won't bother making any updates to the lead no matter how justified they are, realizing they'll just be undone, whats the point? I'll just wait here and twiddle my thumbs and read a book. Penyulap _talk 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the errors in the lead section which still go un-noticed.

Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky.

Above is part of the previous content I wrote in a cleanup of the lead. I would like to ask Colds7ream, Craigboy, UK50, and John Darrow(john is the spelling/grammar ok?) Also TheAnarcat, Ckatz, Eregli bob, Mnw2000, other editors (sorry if I've left you out) and editors not logged in (I value your opinion as much as anyone's) reasons why this statement is more or less correct than the the text as restored by colds7ream.

With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from the Earth with the naked eye, and, as of 2011[update], is the largest artificial satellite orbiting the Earth.

• (1) I'd like to point out that Colds7ream's restoration implies that Mass and Magnitude are related, so it can mislead some people into thinking that Mass has some relationship to Magnitude.
• (2) I'd like to point out it also could imply that the ISS became the largest orbiting satellite in 2011, which is not the date that the ISS became the largest orbiting satellite.

• I noticed that too but it looks like that has been fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I had been specifically asking for consensus really, and asking colds7ream why he changed it, as you know very well from 'For the third time I am re-adding the same info to the intro' if something doesn't have consensus and support, it's victim to the next editor, so I'm asking people what they would support and why, stated as reasons for and reasons against. That way the article will have stability as well as being up-to-date and Neutral. Penyulap _talk 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think simply removing the '2011' got rid of most of the confusion, and we'll probably won't have to touch that sentence until Space Complex Bravo gets built (if that happens).--Craigboy (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• (3) I'd like to suggest that my content points out that the ISS is the brightest object in the sky, after the Sun and Moon, and is an interesting fact for the lead. The only other place it's mentioned is towards the middle of the article in sightings, where I explain Magnitude. The mention of it's magnitude can prompt further study into astronomy, Mass is a relative dead end for further study, but it can be incorporated in a different sentence, rather than this one, where it may imply mass is related to refraction.

• Because of the rapidly changing nature of the article I don't know what your content points were but I would not be opposed to adding the brightness to the article.--Craigboy (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• (4) I'd like to point out it's shorter.
• (5) I'd like to suggest that Mass of the station is not as interesting as it's relative brightness to the Sun and Moon.
• (6) It includes the link to naked eye, which I recall was important to other editors. this is minor as they both mention it, and updating is a minor update.

To avoid edit warring behavior, please explain reasons about the content rather than editors, except to differentiate between the two. Please state reasons here, not in the edit summary.

• (7, not relating to the text) The included reference is to the Hayden Planetarium website, RadioFan pointed out to me a little while ago the word /blog/ doesn't necessarily invalidate a reference. I think this reference is as good as any, maybe better than most. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass of the station

The Mass of the station in the infobox is outdated. Doesn't have the last module in it.

The form of stating the stations mass needs changing, it needs the word 'approximate' or something similar.

As opposed to the size and geometry of the complex, which can be calculated, Mass and Magnitude can only be measured or estimated. You can quote conflicting sources to the end of time and they'll all be estimates, for example the crew don't weigh the trash as it's loaded into the robots for de-orbit, they don't have time or reason to. Calculating the mass by the re-boost burns is easier, using the propellant expended and the change in orbit. The mass of the complex is in the infobox, but could be mentioned again elsewhere qualified as an estimate, or a comparison, not a specific weight presented as a fact.

'approx 415' or approx '450' (my guess) or 'estimated at 415 tons' or '415 not including crew, experiments, supplies or propellants' simplified into 'empty weight' this is better than calculations adding launch weights together without qualifying it.

The Nasa source is outdated, it's last year, there is another module, plus every time a progress robot arrives or leaves it's about 2 1/2 tons difference in payload alone. Then, should 'lifeboats' be included in station mass, or separate like visiting spacecraft ?

Is anyone having trouble understanding any of this ?

I'd like anyone's input for ideas to improve the structure of statements about mass. Penyulap _talk 09:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The mass listed in the article is infobox as of 03/09/2011 and is based on the best reference available. If there are more up to date sources available with similar reliability, it may be updated. Just to be clear, any speculation outside of reliable sources is original research and not permissible in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, it's the best available, and support it's continued useage, I'd support updating, I agree no wp:OR generally although I would support the usual adding up of stats for each module and element that's often done, for example adding EVA totals and so forth. If someone wants to do that for ISS components I'd support them, it would be more accurate and up to date, possibly a quick tally to find out if the current best available source is adding up empty weights, and if that is the case, I'd support anyone who lists a new total that includes the latest modules and any qualifier such as 'emptyweight or without payload' or similar. I'd also support the addition of the tare weight of the latest module to the tally. Penyulap _talk 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

New section exploration, additional material.

I've split the Purpose section into Science and exploration subsections. The material looks very different from one section to the other, like, exploration seems to be all about mission statements and the like rather than science ... I guess there is no getting around it, obviously. It just looks weird to me, and the mention of china is freaking me out too. Anyhow please comment.

(existing lead-in) The ISS provides a location in the relative safety of Low Earth Orbit to test spacecraft systems that will be required for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars. This provides experience in the maintenance, repair, and replacement of systems on-orbit, which will be essential in operating spacecraft further from Earth. Mission risks are reduced, and the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft are advanced.

ESA states 'Human exploration of our Solar System is an important focus for ESA... The ISS is essential for answering questions concerning the possible impact of weightlessness, radiation and other space-specific factors, other aspects such as the effect of long-term isolation and confinement can be more appropriately addressed via ground-based simulations'.

NASA chief Charlie Bolden stated in Feb 2011 "Any mission to Mars is likely to be a global effort". Currently the space agencies of Europe, Russia and China are carrying out the ground-based preparations in the Mars500 project which complement the ISS-based preparations for a manned mission to Mars. China is not an ISS Partner, and no chinese national has been aboard. China has it's own Space station, due for launch in 2011, and has officially initiated its program for a modular station. China is willing to cooperate further with other countries on manned exploration.Penyulap _talk 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The passage starts with the Original purpose in relation to exploration, which is far outdated now, but is included as the starting point of the story. 'A long time ago...' it has to be left in the past tense, to avoid misunderstanding. It's not the current purpose of the station to act as a base for interplanetary manned missions and so forth. All plans for that I know of are beyond the (proposed 2028) end-of-mission date.

The story moves onto the current purpose in regards to exploration, and then in the last sentences, the future purpose or possibilities.

Please state support or concerns with this approach. Penyulap _talk 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Where should space environment, microgravity, education, cultural outreach and sightings go ?

I wrote new material and arranged the purpose section and it's subsections here stating the essential aspects of the purpose (as best I could from my research).

From Essentialism 'Anthropology professor Lawrence Hirschfeld gives an example of what constitutes the essence of a tiger, regardless of whether it is striped or albino, or has lost a leg. The essential properties of a tiger are those without which it is no longer a tiger. Other properties, such as stripes or number of legs, are considered inessential or 'accidental'.

Why is the space station used for scientific research ? scientific research can easily be done on earth, can't it ?

The ISS is essential 'to conduct experiments that require one or more of the unusual conditions present on the station.' Then the purpose section has two subsections, which explain two of those conditions briefly. The subsections are Space environment and Microgravity.

The purpose section moves on to explain why the ISS is essential to exploration. It covers the original purpose which has evolved and changed with each new administration. Starting in the past with the original purpose, it is currently missing the present purpose (which needs insertion, it was disputed, removed, I haven't added new text there as yet) and goes on to the partners intentions (those which I have found so far). The section hasn't changed, and remains in the same place in purpose. The purpose section then moves on to education, covering the unique interaction the ISS has with classroom studies and astronomy studies, one section runs into the other, so students in the classroom can observe the ISS directly.

The purpose section finished with the cultural outreach section, not intended to be trivia, but to cover topics such as Arts in space, such as this which is not science or exploration or education. It would outline the use of the ISS to ease international (cold war style) tensions between nations, and possibly absorb items of importance that fit nowhere else, such as the ISS in movies and books, but thats beyond the scope of my enquiry, I'd leave it to others decide what goes in there besides art, and what doesn't.

Currently the sections are in disarray. I've asked the admin why they have been changed here on the 10th of June, but no reasons have been forthcoming from any editor as to why the categories are arranged in their current state. Astronomy is the study of celestial objects, so I'd suggest that it is more a part of education, rather than station structure, granted it is not the purpose of the ISS to be studied, but it helps the education section, which is teachers and students first port of call. Sightings of the station are almost always done from on earth not from the station structure. The station structure is not essential to sightings, many smaller satellites are observed from earth, even with the naked eye.

Microgravity is not part of station structure, the purpose of the structure is to study and take advantage of microgravity. But the station doesn't create artificial gravity, it's built in a place that takes advantage of it. There are reasons why it would go into the structure section, but it is required in the purpose section to explain the purpose.

Likewise, the space environment, not in it's current form, but in it's form here (same ref) is also required to explain purpose, it mentions the dangers of the space environment in passing because scientific studies performed on the ISS involve studies of it's effects on the health of space travelers. It also flows into the exploration section, which discusses the space environment and microgravity. In it's earlier form the safety aspects section covered issues relating solely to the crew onboard. Iss->Safety as in crew safety only. Penyulap _talk 11:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Colds7ream, can I have your thoughts on this reasoning please ? Penyulap _talk 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Education and cultural outreach section text

Here is some new text for the education section, I'm still waiting and working on JAXA for images to be released into the public domain, but I would like to see if there is support for mention of the EPO experiments. I don't know if it's good enough without pics. The proposed new text of the Education and cultural outreach section would look like this. Italics added for clarity.

---

Part of the crew's mission is educational outreach and international cooperation. The crew of the ISS provide opportunities for students on Earth by running student-developed experiments, making educational demonstrations, and allowing for student participation in classroom versions of ISS experiments, and directly engaging students using radio, videolink and email. The ISS program itself, with the international cooperation that it represents, allows more than 20 nations to live and work together in space, providing lessons for future multi-national missions.[refs]

Amateur Radio on the ISS (ARISS) is a volunteer program which inspires students worldwide, to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics through amateur radio communications opportunities with the ISS crew. ARISS is an international working group, consisting of delegations from 9 countries including several countries in Europe as well as Japan, Russia, Canada, and the USA. The organization is run by volunteers from the national amateur radio organizations and the international AMSAT (Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) organizations from each country.[refs]

JAXA also utilizes the Kibo laboratory for culture/humanities and social sciences. JAXA states that Looking into the Space environment and guiding the humankind to untold surprise or wonder, and broadening our wisdom is one of the goals of the International Space Station.[refs]

---

please edit below this text for support/objection to going with the above text, and working out pics here later on.

The verbatim phrase from JAXA is 'Looking into the Space environment and guiding the humankind to untold surprise or wonder, and broadening our wisdom are one of the goals of the International Space Station.' I changed the word 'are' to 'is' so I don't use quotation marks, or should it be put into quotation marks and left as it is? maybe with [sic] added ?

The photos in the public domain are no good at all, it's better for now I think to with just the text alone. I'm trying to get pictures like these Art 1Art 2 art 3 in japanese, art 4and here is a 4.0 MB PDF, the marbling in space pic would be good I think. Any image I can get, I'd like to make it as small as is practical, about the size of the ones in the pressurized modules table. Personally I think art is less appealing to the western general public, however sections of all communities, and the Japanese, seem to me to take art and culture quite seriously, and so as one of the ongoing stated goals of the ISS, I think it rates at least a minor mention in this section. Penyulap _talk 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Costs

Does anyone want to find out the cost of the ISS? the existing refs are incomplete and outdated at best. Possibly where accurate info for a particular partner can be found, it can be mentioned it's that partners cost... The ESA ref has nothing going for it, except being on the ESA page, it doesn't state anything of who did the estimate or how they arrived at the figures they did.Penyulap _talk 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That will be very hard to find out. At least in my opinion it will be. All the agencies involved have kept prices kinda secret and hidden. Some costs are known, but there is not really one $$$ figure out there. It ranges widely, depending on who it is.--NavyBlue84 03:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with that, possibly we can find references, quoting people who are not ourselves, saying as much. Rather than leaving inaccurate information on the page, just a reference to one or two officials stating that costs are difficult to quantify or some such, and something to suggest why. It can't help people looking for accurate information to come to wiki and think they have found it when that's not the case. Or at least an overview of costs explaining the problem, followed by country by country expenditure if available.Penyulap _talk 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

On cost related research, regarding why it costs so little in Russia, and so much in America, an obscure forum user remarks...

In Russia, Budget stretches YOU!! however it doesn't meet wiki standards so the smiles can stay in discussion, well, I thought it was funny anyhow ....Penyulap _talk 02:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we will never know... muwahahahaha... --U5K0 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the The USA tuday said the cost is $100 billion. I do think, though that they got it form wikipedia and we all know how reliable that is :P --U5K0 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed ! It's important to look for the most accurate information, although, I think more of people who want to learn about this, like people who take time to stare into the sky, rather than the media, who pretty much ignore factual information. Collecting each countries separate budget spending must be possible however. This is certainly not impossible. Penyulap _talk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

U5K0, I used the word 'modules' rather than segments, as it's the fashion, I thought it would be too verbose saying 'across two pressurized and one unpressurized module or similar words, so I just went with '3 mods' I won't undo it myself though, it means the same thing.Penyulap _talk 09:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada's spending on space is about $400M this year, and looking at their goals, I can't help but think I have a few old computers here, and if they give me the $400M I'll install Ubuntu and connect them to the internet, they can totally overshoot their stated goals in about 25 minutes I expect. I'm sorry to all my canadian friends who are reading this, but can't help thinking they'd be like 'yeah, that's true'. Anyhow, they have an impeccable free health care system.Penyulap _talk 05:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If at some point in the future Canada attach those ISS robotic arms to a JAXA Godzilla torso I'd like to hereby preemptively retract my above statement.Penyulap _talk 05:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What about something like this....

Country	Agency	Budget (USD)
USA	NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)	$19,000 million
ESA	ESA (European Space Agency)	$5,430 million (2011)
RUS	ROSCOSMOS (Russian Federal Space Agency)	$3,800 million (2011)
JPN	JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency)	$2,460 million
CAN	CSA (Canadian Space Agency)	$300 million
ISS partners	All space agencies annual budgets	approx $1.77

Penyulap _talk 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

it has the total budgets for all agencies, I think with some asking about, we might get some help from the same people who made the original table I cut up from this page List of space agencies and maybe some brief little pie-charts like in the utilization section for USOS hardware allocation, to show modules/segments total by agency, rockets and/or payload kg's of supplies per agency, that sort of thing, to explain the contributions from different agencies.Penyulap _talk 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I support MLM42's removal of text relating to the 'most expensive object', but would reconsider if a reference can be found that has a well thought out estimated cost of the telephone. Two different refs is cool, like "the ISS is the most expensive object at X dollars ^[1] exceeding the Telephone which cost Y dollars ^[2]." I don't know either cost, but I bet the devil my head the telephone to date comes out on top. Penyulap _talk 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Change of structure, new material. Call for support, or objection

Well this is a snapshot of the current state of the Costs section

---

Costs

The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 160 billion dollars.[28] ESA, the one agency which actually presents potential overall costs, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over 30 years.[27] A precise cost estimate for the ISS is unclear, as it is difficult to determine which costs should be attributed to the ISS program, or how the Russian contribution should be measured.[28]

On March 14, 2000 President Bill Clinton signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA), which created a problem for NASA in its financial dealings with the Russian space agency. Section 6 of the Act "prohibits the U.S. Government from making payments in connection with the ISS to the Russian space agency, organizations or entities under its control, or any other element of the Russian government, after January 1, 1999, unless the President makes a determination that Russia's policy is to oppose proliferation to Iran, that Russia is demonstrating a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent the transfer of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile systems to Iran, and that neither the Russian space agency nor any entity reporting to it has made such transfers for at least one year prior to such determination." [208] Section 6 incorporated a "crew safety exception" which was intended to prevent "imminent loss of life" and also allowed for payments involving Russia's Service Module and docking hardware that was already in process when the Act was being debated. At an October 12, 2000 House International Relations Committee hearing, NASA was criticized for its broad interpretation of the word “imminent” in the crew safety exception.[209] In 2006 Russia was no longer obligated to provide transportation of American astronauts aboard the Soyuz spacecraft without payment. With this deadline looming, in 2005 Congress amended the INA to exempt Soyuz flights from the Section 6 ban. The exemption was renewed in 2008 and is in effect through 2016. [210]

---

I think this is a poor excuse for us all not to do any work, the costs must be out there somewhere and I'd like everyone's, anyone's help in finding them. Iran stuff is politics that belongs elsewhere, it doesn't help anyone find out how much the space station costs. The first paragraph has useful information which will probably be superseded by up to date info in the new section. A draft of the new section will probably be more useful to people trying to get an idea of costs, so I'll go straight ahead with it, replacing what is there now. References will be missing for some of the information initially, because some of it is in foreign languages, and I'd love any help fixing refs anyone would like to give. Please don't give DEconstructive assistance (like deleting sections with click click click) please be constructive by finding one agency, any agency, and finding their costs.Penyulap _talk 04:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I am adding now,

NASA Vision for Space Exploration budget

The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 160 billion dollars. ESA, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over 30 years.

---

The NASA budget for 2007 estimates costs for the ISS (excluding shuttle costs) at $US25.6 billion for the years 1994 to 2005. NASA's annual contribution increase from 2010 to $US2.3 billion and is likely to remain at that level until 2017.

Based on costs incurred plus a projected $2.5 Billion per year from 2011-2017, NASA spending since 1993 not including shuttle spending comes to $US53 Billion. An additional 33 Shuttle assembly and supply flights equates to $35 Billion. With addition costs from development of the freedom station project precursor, NASA's contribution comes to approximately $US100 Billion.

---

ESA spending on a 30-year projected station lifespan is €8 billion. Consisting of Columbus development €1 Billion. ATV's First launch and development €1.35 Billion, subsequent launches €875 Million X 4 scheduled, Ariane-5 launch costs of €125 million each. ATV total costs €2.85 Billion.

---

JAXA Kibo $2.8 Billion, plus operating costs 350-400 Million annually. HTV development 68 billion yen, Plus HTV launch costs of about ¥ 250 billion.

Total costs for Kibo until 2010 ¥7,100 billion, consisting of development approximately ¥ 250 billion, Kibo laboratory equipment development cost about ¥450 billion, approximately ¥2,360 billion in costs and expenses of shuttle launches. Astronaut training, ground facilities, experiment-related expenses approximately 110 billion yen.

JAXA Annual costs since 2011 at about 400 billion yen, consisting of the operating costs (such as maintenance, astronaut training) about 90 billion yen, (experiment-related costs), about 40 billion yen, and HTV launches.

---

RSA costs are difficult to determine as substantial development costs of the Robotic Progress Cargoships, Manned/Robotic Soyuz Spacecraft, and Proton Rockets used for module launches, are spread across previous Soviet rocket programs. Cost of development for Module design such as DOS base blocks, life support, docking systems etc are spread across the budgets of the Salmat, Almaz, and MIR I and MIR II programs. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated in Jan 2011 that the government will spend 115 billion rubles ($3.8 bln) on national space programs in 2011, however this includes the entire space program which will launch a spacecraft on average once per week during 2011.

---

CSA spending over the last 20 years is estimated at $CA1.4 Billion. Including development of the Canadarm2 and SPDM.

---

It is rough, but please state if you support further editing and protection against widespread deletion, or object to it's inclusion and want it returned to the previous version. Please edit below this text to state support or objection. Penyulap _talk 07:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think U5K0 was right on when he said "Also the The USA tuday said the cost is $100 billion. I do think, though that they got it form wikipedia and we all know how reliable that is :P" plus, that reference to $100 billion has so got to DIE DIE DIE!!! when the first kid with a calculator comes along. (I broke mine trying to work out if the stated mass was tare weights of the modules. at launch, or thats my excuse anyway) Penyulap _talk 07:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Safety / new section Maintainence

The section on Safety aspects has a lot of things that just don't relate to safety of the station at all, I'd like to cut a lot of the information that doesn't belong there. air leak and the venting of smoke from an Elektron oxygen generator stay, these are safety issues.

Some items are simple maintainence notes like solar array trouble, which has no effect upon life support, the big arrays basically run science experiments, which would have to shut down if the arrays don't work. The implications for heating the station are minor, considering modules that can't be used anyway because of long term power failure could be closed off..

Basically these items don't belong in safety, as they pose no threat whatsoever.

1)Shuttle disasters and their effect upon the assembly schedule, this is already covered elsewhere as appropriate.

2)Reduced crew due size due to shuttle disaster, two is perfectly safe. The lack of more than two doesn't create problems.

3)'Failure of the computers which left the station without thruster, Elektron, Vozdukh and other environmental control system operations, the root cause of which was found to be condensation inside the electrical connectors leading to a short-circuit'

Those need research to see what is and isn't true as the original citation wouldn't have met Yahoo standards let alone Wiki standards... the corrosion is all correct, but whether it had implications is another thing, they have backups for ALL life support systems, full stop. It may have re-arranged the work schedule to bring redundant systems online and repair broken ones, but thats just work scheduling and maintainence.

4) 'spate of issues with 'solar arrays

The 2007 link about the solar array gives the reader an impression of danger regarding the solar array, which even the reporter admits could simply be jettisoned, and the items 'at risk' were things like assembly schedules and science capabilities. The crew member was in no danger as they'd taken appropriate measures for working on the live electrical cables, and were clearly satisfied it was a job worth doing, their mode of repair shows a well thought out plan. The reporter is just alarmist saying things like this "The spacewalk was considered particularly risky, with Parazynski venturing farther from the safety of the station than ever before. " and " just before the pair left the safety of the station's airlock. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110300227.html

5)More recently, problems have been noted with the station's engines and cooling. In 2009, the engines on Zvezda were issued an incorrect command which caused excessive vibrations to propagate throughout the station structure which persisted for over two minutes.[202] While no damage to the station was immediately reported, some components may have been stressed beyond their design limits. Further analysis confirmed that the station was unlikely to have suffered any structural damage, and it appears that "structures will still meet their normal lifetime capability".(..so they lived happily ever after, but some people still aren't convinced) 'Further evaluations are under way.'

The stations engines are designed to be fired without killing the entire crew and destroying the station, but maybe I'll check on that eh? sheesh.

6)2009 also saw damage to the S1 radiator, one of the components of the station's cooling system. The problem was first noticed in Soyuz imagery in September 2008, but was not thought to be serious.[204] The imagery showed that the surface of one sub-panel has peeled back from the underlying central structure, possibly due to micro-meteoroid or debris impact. It is also known that a Service Module thruster cover, jettisoned during an EVA in 2008, had struck the S1 radiator, but its effect, if any, has not been determined. On 15 May 2009 the damaged radiator panel's ammonia tubing was mechanically shut off from the rest of the cooling system by the computer-controlled closure of a valve. The same valve was used immediately afterwards to vent the ammonia from the damaged panel, eliminating the possibility of an ammonia leak from the cooling system via the damaged panel.

again, this doesn't address how it relates to station safety. Basically, power comes in through the solar arrays, when you add, say 50kw of electrical energy to anything inside a closed room, you get 50kw of heat energy coming out, the radiators carry away the heat from the modules, and dispel it into space as infrared radiation. So if your cooling system loses 30 percent of it's capacity, you switch off 30% of your electrical load. Or, simply switch off everything and the whole station will freeze.

So I propose deleting everything except the Fire and air leak, which are safety issues. The rest can be moved to the ISS Maintainence article, which as it's name suggests is an article so boring nobody has created it. Mir had safety issues, with the Robot spacecraft crashing into the station. That is probably a good read, but this is just making the article longer. Is there anything people think should be in there, or moved somewhere else ? Penyulap _talk 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved and saved whatever I can from Safety into a new section called maintainence, as the material is good, and is being maintained and expanded.

I've dumped references to the shuttle from the safety of the ISS section as they relate to safety of the shuttle, rather than safety of the ISS, the ISS wasn't hit by the shuttle for example, and is not related to the incident. It is a Major safety incident that doesn't have anything to do with ISS safety. That major incident's effect upon the ISS is outlined elsewhere in the appropriate sections, for example in the assembly section.Penyulap _talk 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article called 'major incidents on the ISS' could be changed to ISS Maintainence if people wanted to do that. It would be a more appropriate title. Penyulap _talk 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Which (editor) decided that sighting the station is part of its purpose?! :-S)

_{(this section has been edited to remove jokes at the request of RadioFan, and a general cleanup too)}

(inserted) Short answer, Sightings is a subsection of Education, which is a subsection of Purpose. That's where I put it, other people have messed with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 11:56, 10 June 2011 Colds7ream (talk | contribs) (169,856 bytes) (Move 'sightings' out of 'purpose' too. Which damnfool idiot decided that sighting the station is part of its purpose?! :-S) (undo)

That (editor) would be me ! Good to see you back from RL.

The new sections were arranged by me with Purpose being split into subsections according to importance and material expected for them. I have no idea where they are at now, for reasons mentioned on my userpage.

I had listed the subsections in descending order of importance to the partners, and how much material would be incorporated into each category...

• 1 Purpose

• 1.1 Science
• 1.2 Exploration
• 1.3 Education
• 1.4 Cultural outreach

or with Education and cultural outreach as one section.

other possibilities for the sightings category listed below don't really grab at it or demand it's inclusion

• 2 Origins
• 3 Station structure
• 4 Life on board
• 5 Station operations
• 6 Safety aspects
• 7 Politics
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 External links

So I put it with Sightings as a subsection of education, as a natural follow-on to the sections original text, to assist Teachers to get the kids looking up.

I don't care where you put it, it simply seemed logical when I was cleaning up the index, removed '2011' from the docking schedule as it'd need changing often, and I can't see it as helpful towards the end of each year, so the old was just copied below the new, inside the section, killed 'impacts of the IRAN nuclear proliferation treaty blah blah blah' as something boring you put in a section rather than it's title, i think it's in costs now. simplified things like 'scheduled to be launched' into minimalist headers for simplicity.. basically like that. I'd started off new sections and organized new homes for new material I'd been adding, The pope and that witch martha steward, and U2, I like U2 and the pope is just a granddad type of old guy, but what I think is irrelevant, I put that new section and new material in there for the many people who are interested in that sort of thing, for those people who come here looking. I stopped work in the middle because of problems with another user. Anyhow, new junk like the ISS in movies and books and so forth didn't have a place or section before, and thats where I was going before I stopped. Then some other editors put up expansion notes or something, which is pretty right really, I stopped mid-sentence really, and they'd found new things i think...

Anyhow, I'm quite happy to take colorful language from you as the person who cares most about this page, and anyone else who has made more contributions than I have. please feel free to switch on your skype and use even more colorful language too ! I invite you !

Penyulap _talk 13:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

also, whilst I'm not going to change it myself, I'd like to point out that the 'exploration' subsection I made is like, an 'exploration of space' or 'exploration of other worlds' sort of thing, and education is a separate part of overall purpose to that, not really a part of exploration, just my thoughts. Penyulap _talk 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap _talk 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please consider this a formal request to rescind your decidedly unfair final comment against me; not only is it inappropriate for an article talk page, but the claim is not in any way supported by reality. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I am happy to remove any comment anyone else considers unfair, however as I consider my own comments to be fair and honest, I am actually unable to tell what comment you are referring to. Please identify the comment so I am able to assist you by removing the comment you refer to. Penyulap _talk 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The "deliberate..." portion (to the end of the line), none of which is even remotely fair or accurate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I re-read the section, and when I realized there was only one comment about you, I moved immediately to remove it as it was the only comment, and therefore must be the one you refer to. This caused an edit conflict, but I've now removed all reference to you from the previous comment, whilst pointing out that removal in no way reflects that I agree with you. Penyulap _talk 17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Colds7ream, why have you put sightings into station structure ? what is your thinking there, I can't see the logic for it. Certainly everything is related to station structure in some way, and for utilization and politics, it's all related to station structure, utilization is, in a big way, but the connection between station structure and sightings is much more remote. I can't see the connection there. Sightings are almost invariably done from the surface of the Earth, some from aircraft or spacecraft, but most of them, the majority, are done from outside the stations structure and far away. The stations structure has no special connection to the ability to see it, other satellites, many hundreds can be seen from the ground also. About 1 every ten or fifteen minutes on average. The objects that can be spotted from the ground vary considerably in size and magnitude. I think sightings should have a top level category if it can't go into the education, where I thought it belonged, as it is most helpful to students, and people 'studying' the skies. The education section already relates to adult studies. What is your thinking, why did you remove it from education, why is it in structure ?

Also colds7ream, can you explain your reasoning on the other changes you made to my index cleanup, why is education a part of exploration(of mars/moon/solar system) ? was it a typo on your part ? Penyulap _talk 10:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone settle down a bit. The Sightings section is the right place now I think. I've pared it down a bit, focused it a bit more on the what and why and included some more reliable sources (a couple books that make good mention of ISS spotting as well as a rather old but very well written article on the subject from the Hayden Planetarium).--RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)