Talk:International Space Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles International Space Station (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Peer review International Space Station has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
WikiProject Space
Portal:Space
 Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space exploration Importance to Space exploration: Top

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified International Space Station as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian,  French or Portuguese language Wikipedias.
International Space Station is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Marcos Pontes

Is Marcos Pontes a crew or not of Expedition 13? I am brazilian and I know he is the first brazilian in space!

Pontes is not a member of the Expedition 13 crew, but he is a member of the crew of Soyuz TMA-8. Essentially, he flies up with Expedition 13, then flies back with the returning Expedition 12 next week. Shimgray | talk | 16:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of visitors

Is this in any particular order? Would someone mind ordering it chronologically if not? Mr. Jones 15:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I tentatively removed the list, on the thoughts that 1) it's not very useful; 2) it's visually horrendous, and 3) all of the information is duplicated at List of human spaceflights. - Seth Ilys 15:28, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Update needed!

The International Space Station is the second most-visited...

This comment under 'ISS Expeditions' needs to be updated since the Discovery trip. Kember 23:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Project or Non-sequitir?

There are many critics who argue that the $100 billion USD would be better spent providing food and clean water for the 24,000 people who die every day on Earth from malnutrition and starvation.

This is a non sequitur with regards to the ISS in particular, in that it could be applied to any expenditure. It is also a piece of rhetoric and advocacy, not a neutral description of criticism of the ISS. --FOo

No, the ISS is a particularly heavily criticized boondoggle, and the space program in general has been criticized in this way since it's beginnings. It is also an absolutely neutral factual statement. It is hardly a 'non sequitur' - look at the article on particle physics where similar statements are made and properly balanced. Anything that spents tens of billions of dollars and gives back no clear benefit to the people that are taxed to pay for it is subject to this kind of general criticism - it's a matter of scale.
Also, if you want to read 'rhetoric' and 'advocacy', just read the article on Wikipedia itself. It's a mess that basically promotes the hell out of itself. That error should not be carried over into all discussions of the ways science and technology are supposed to be useful to us 'eventually' (even if we died waiting). See scientism.

Disappointed that my famine sentence has been removed - it was factual and restored some neutrality to the page which I thought had a pro-exploration bias. While I agree that the argument could be applied to any expenditure, it is particularly pertinent to the space station - 24,000 people die every day from hunger on Earth and spending that much so that a few dozen humans can spend some time in a high-tech tin can seems to symbolise the poor sense of reality many scientists have developed. I'm not against space exploration or science - just think that we should address problems on Earth first. As for the statement being rhetoric and advocacy - I'm sure the starving millions would disagree if they had the resources to. And given that someone dies from hunger every 3.6 seconds, I don't think they would think much of the argument that the space station will bring benefits in the longer term.

The starving millions are not starving because of the ISS, and it is completely unfair to single it out. Leaving aside the argument as to whether it's lack of aid or, as seems to be the case depressingly often, war and corruption, that is responsible for world hunger, there are innumerable other places of arguably less long-term value where funding could be found from. Why not argue that, say, funding for opera, sports, or national parks, should be cut to pay for aid? --Robert Merkel

Especially "profesional" or commercial sports (like paying ridicuols salaries to players), or the entertainment industry. We spend a LOT more on those, they have fewer benefits if any. Mir 06:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This same argument can be used forever to stifle any endeavour that man ever plans to embark upon. There will always be problems on earth and it is naive and short sighted to believe that not building the ISS will do anything for those who are starving. Some even believe that giving up the pursuit of dreams will spell the beginning of the end for us. Besides the fact that there are many other earth bound things ranging from the mundane (e.g. buerocracy) to entertainment, which are also expensive and could also be deemed unnecessary, what will the engineers and scientists do, who work in the space program, if it would be cancelled? If they are out of work, this also costs money. If they work for another company designing some other stuff that eventually might make our lives easier or more entertaining, what does this cost and does this help the 3rd world? 85.176.99.68 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive political correctness?

While I am all against discrimatory(?) language, isn't the latest change to crewed (from manned, as in manned spaceflight) a bit overzealous? As far as I know, manned spaceflight carries a bit more implications than just not-woman. Crewed spaceflight somehow doesn't sound right in my ears --UsagiYojimbo

It is difficult to over-emphasize the value of using gender-neutral terms and phrases. Doing so is *not* "excessive political correctness." Appropriate use of these terms is merely correct, and inappropriate use of gender-biased terms is simply incorrect. If "crewed" is awkward, I suggest using "with a human crew." Sdsds 08:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

After my edit to improve the gender neutrality of this article, the log shows: "16:22, 2 January 2007 Cjosefy (Talk | contribs) m (rv - manned is not a gender specific term and is accepted terminology in situations like this.)" Cjosefy did not choose to edit this "talk" page, so we have only that user's edit summary, as shown above, to help us understand the reason for the re-edit. In response to Cjosefy: whereas "manned" may be 'accepted terminology' at Baptist-affiliated universities in Waco, Texas, it is certainly not accepted terminology here in Washington State. Nor do I believe it is the preferred terminology used e.g. by NASA. Why do you insist upon using it, when a gender-neutral phrase like, "with a human crew" is available and, to most readers, not overly burdensome? Sdsds 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The adjective "manned" is not acceptable in Washington State? NASA has changed some references to human spaceflight, but they haven't tried to eliminate references to a "manned mission" or other such things. The fact is you are pushing this POV, while the vast majority of readers obviously are ok with "manned" in certain instances. Cjosefy 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As Neil Armstrong almost said, "Your edit is one small change by a man, one giant leap backwards for humankind." You have made Wikipedia that much less palatable for those like myself with a gender-neutral view of human accomplishments in space. Sdsds 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Readers interested in this topic might want to review how terminology about human spaceflight has changed over time. For example, some of the earliest documents describing plans for such activity in the U.S. described it as "The Man in Space Program."[1]. Some, perhaps Cjoesfy among them, would say this usage of 'Man' is not offensively sexist. Certainly at the time, it wasn't considered to be so by the authors of that document. Yet most of us with modern sensibilities prefer terminology which is "easier on the psyche" of young, female readers. Those readers, less familiar with historical usages, might inadvertantly think their gender precluded them from being one of the "men" who went into space. They might also think their gender would prevent them from "manning" a space station. But there would be little doubt in their minds that they would be equally welcome as part of a station's "human crew," or its "inhabitants." Yet Cjosefy reverts edits that use gender-neutral phrases like these. Like any loyal Wikipedian, I strive to hold the belief that Cjosefy's intentions are good. That notwithstanding, I (obviously) consider Cjosefy's edits misguided. Sdsds 01:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Is the definition of "manned" wrong? If it is not, then it cannot be a gender-biased term. You do a disservice to females when you assume that they can understand the word "inhabitants" but not "manned." When did it become normal for society to conform to the lowest common denominator?
  • Something you haven't touched on is that no one ever uses the term "manned" to describe something that is exclusively male. While early space flights may have only been performed by men, NASA did not select the term "manned spaceflight" because they knew it would only be guys up there. They selected it because it means that people would perform spaceflight. You've come along and assigned a gender to a word that has none by definition and decided that it is harmful to women.
  • I guess it's sad that I'm part of the "minority" that assumes women can read and understand the correct meanings of English words. When you assume that their fragile psyches cannot possibly withstand reading the word "manned" you are doing them more harm than good. Have you asked around outside of your circle of influence as to whether this one word has harmed women? I wonder how we ended up having female astronauts when they had to grow up reading about "manned spaceflight." It's a miracle they even exist.
  • In any event, good luck with the crusade. There are thousands of more pages you need to cleanse. Cjosefy 16:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
See usage note 3/4 the way down the page in a grey box at [2] which I believe is from the American heritage dictionary. It clearly says that the origin of "manned" comes from a gender-neutral term and a majority of their usage panel supports its use. This isn't to pass a value judgment, but to point out that the word by definition is a gender-neutral term, no matter what your interpretation may be, and also that significant portions of learned individuals support its use in certain situations. As I've argued all along, the use of "manned" in reference to spaceflight is a legitimate use. I'm not arguing for always use man based terms or anything of the sort, just that its use in certain contexts makes sense and is accepted. Cjosefy 12:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe and Japan

Hmm, the contributions of Europe and Japan seem to be somewhat downplayed in this article.

  • Same with Canada's. I didn't see the Canadarm mentioned at all in the entire article. --Matt0401 18:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The most important criticism of the space station is that it actually is rather scaled back. All the people will be doing is research. The whole *point* of having a permanently manned space station has always been to also be able to do in-space construction!

In the long run, if you want to see people living in space, you're going to need to expand the capabilities of the space station by quite a bit.

[edit] Request for statistics and other numbers

How fast does it travel? How long does it take to orbit the earth? -- Tarquin 14:22, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What Time zone is it using? Kember 02:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] laser brooms

The cited articles mention that laser brooms will be kept low power to avoid even inadvertently infringing on treaties against deploying weapons in space. Their purpose is to clear away "space junk" which can threaten the space station due to extremely high-speed collisions. Plautus however, begins his edit with phrasing similar to "it has been proposed to install weapons on the space station". An outright distortion.

By the way, it is not a distortion to present this as a weapons system. The tests will be low-powered, but the final system will be capable of vaporizing targets in space (or on the ground via mirrors). But more about this elsewhere, I have a contribution to write. - Plautus satire 01:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus has done this several times before. He is bluffing by presenting an external link and hoping that no one will actually click and read the linked article. - Curps 00:55, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to post a misleading article, I misread the article in my haste, I thought they were doing ground tests of a space-based system, since they talk about the ISS. My mistake, I'm sorry about that, I wasn't trying to deceive anyone. - Plautus satire 01:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no point in rewriting Plautus's text about laser brooms in a more NPOV fashion because it is entirely superfluous detail. One might as well write about the space station's solar panels, life-support systems, zero-gravity toilets or any of the hundreds and hundreds of other much more key subsystems on board, and make the article ten times as long. Plautus's purpose in introducing this text about laser brooms of all things is purely in support of his conspiracy theories (eg, the Hubble space telescope is really a spy telescope). It deserves removal on grounds of marginal relevance even if he had written it in an NPOV way. A separate laser broom page is the place to put this material. - Curps 01:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is true, I'm sorry I was so persistent trying to get this in there, I admit I was wrong. - Plautus satire 01:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It gets even better. Rereading the two articles cited by Plautus his original edit... this is a ground-based system that won't even be installed on the space station. - Curps 01:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ouch. I guess I have to bite the bullet and admit I was wrong here. This is another lesson about posting in haste. I'll try to learn from this. Thanks for catching this error, this "laser broom" deserves an entry all its own. - Plautus satire 01:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll also apologize for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, Curps, I thought you were still watchdogging some of my topics as per the orders on the ban plautus pages (so I assumed the worst - Plautus satire 01:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)). - Plautus satire 01:18, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, MyRedDice, thanks for turning my bungled edition into something that I for one appreciate. I think this deserves a mention, but I didn't feel it was my place after my recent blunder. - Plautus satire 01:28, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Plautus. Perhaps you could help us improve the laser broom article, which is currently quite a short stub? Martin 01:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] First ever spacewalk with whole crew

While NASA says "the first ever two-man spacewalk without a crewmember inside" [3], that's misleading because Soyuz 26 had both of its crew outside, transferring from one vehicle to another and the NASA wording gives the impression that it was first ever rather than only first for ISS. Jamesday 02:32, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of unmanned spaceflights to the ISS

Does anyone have suitable knowledge and/or access to information to make a List of unmanned spaceflights to the ISS? I think it's rather a good idea to make one. Ropers 18:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added such a list. It mostly consists of Progress cargo flights. Rusty 16:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to be nominated for feature article?

This article has improved from head-to-toe since I last saw it. Is it ready to be nominated for a feature article? Astudent 13:20, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

  • Um... I don't think so yet... "ISS Spacewalks", "Visiting manned spacecraft and crews" and "Visiting unmanned spacecraft" needs a summary first. --Andylkl 15:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] list of foregin modules delivered to NASA

Is node2 already delivered to NASA and is ready for launch?
Is Cupola delivered to NASA ? if not, what is the progress and expectations
Are japanese modules are delivered to NASA ?
is russian SPP is delivered to NASA?
etc. - I have seen somewhere such a list, but can't remember where...
also maybe this information about the status of the individual modules should be added to their respective pages and not in a merged list...

[edit] count, places, capabilities of docking locations

Can someone try to count and locate the various docking ports of the current (and future) ISS configuration?

three PMAs for Shuttle / HIIs
some docking locations for Soyous/Progress/ATV on Zarya, Zvezda, Pris, UDM, etc.
one airlock with russian spacesuits, one with both russian and american (are there REALY russian spacesuits in the Quest airlock, or it is only POSSIBLE to use them from there)

[edit] Soyouz and Progress flights, brought from NASA

count of Soyouz and Progress flights that NASA has brought from Russia - so we can see how much more are left... This should be stated somewhere in the foundation treatry and/or later annexes...

[edit] ISS Secret?

How come we never seem to see the space station on TV or hear about it on the radio or read about it in the papers? Most of the worlds biggest economies are pumping $100 billion into this project and you would think that the goings on up there would be mentioned in the popular mainstream media.

It's as though the thing were a secret.

Holden 27

  • OK, two guys spinning about the Earth once every 90 minutes. Very newsworthy. Especially considering that all they seem to do up there is take up space. A 2-man ISS is worthless scientifically and practically. The only point in having them up there has been to maintain "a continuous presence" in space. Consequently, you're lucky if the major media outlets report the crew changes and major crises abord the station. And some of them do. I don't see where you're coming from. --Alexwcovington 10:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well if you have Dish Network or DirecTV (I don't know about Bell ExpressVu) you can watch NASA TV and they have ISS Mission coverage everyday and most of the time the astornauts scheduals seem quite full and busy. As busy as a 2 person crew can get. But I do think that they should increase the crew to 3 as soon as the space shuttle program is running again. Anyway with news stations focused on more "exciting" issuses like scandals, wars, to anything else they think will grab there attention (basically anything with shock value). People don't seem to be that interested in the ISS when the news comes in with there shock stories, scandals, and there ocassional human interest story(aka Pre-recorded time filler). --Silver86 01:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can also watch NASA TV online [4]35.11.183.95 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of the ISS

It seems like this section doesn't cover the purpose of the ISS as much as a discussion regarding cost/benefit. Isn't the actual purpose to carry out scientific research in many areas, and to prepare for future missions into deep space? And shouldn't things like that go in the section about the purpose, and cost/benefit into another section?

It also might be nice to reference the science that has already been done. There is a lot of data at http://www.scipoc.msfc.nasa.gov/factchron2.html - it'd be interesting to know how the experiements turned out, what we've learned, etc --noösfractal 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Today the artical has no 'purpose' section and I find that lacking as I read the artical and wonder what are the goals of the ISS? It seems the article is incomplete without the purpose of having ISS. WilliamKF 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Two words: Space Gold. --NEMT 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] number of Soyouz/Progress flights agreed between Russia and the others?

Somewhere in the official documents about the ISS (and latter adjustments to the plan) there is a number of Soyouz and Progress veichcles that Russia will get payment (or barter deals) for. Examples (correct me if I am wrong)- the Zaraya is russian built/launched/operated, but US payed/own component. The SPP is russian payed/built/operated/own, but US launched component (barter deal - the US launches the SPP as part of 'payment' in return for other Russia services - Progress/Soyouz flights and other things.)

  • These payment/barter deals were agreed before even the first ISS flight and were calculated for many years in advance. Of course some of the Progress/Soyouz flights are just Russia contribution without barter deal.
  • The number of barter S/P flights were calculated be so much that to end when the other participating states have the vechicles needed to fullfill their commitments on their own (the CRV as replacement for Soyouz, the ATV, HTV and Shuttle-when-no-more-major-components-have-to-be-launched as replacement for Progress) - then Russia will launch only so much Progress (and maybe no Soyouz) to cover its own comittmets, without additional flights to cover for NASA/ESA/etc.
  • When the CRV was removed from the plan it looked as more Soyouz-capsules will be needed than previously calculated (the CRV was meant as escape-capsule-replacement for Soyouz) how was this accounted for?
  • After the Columbia disaster there were more Progress flights than previously calculated (to compensate for the supplies that should be delivered by Shuttles). These flights are actualy executed already between 2003 and 2005... Something has to had been negotiated between Russia and the other participants, becouse it looks like previously agreed Progress flights will be exhaused soon and the bills have to be covered somehow... Maybe NASA will launch the Russian Science module? Or more russian cosmonauts/tourists will get seats in Shuttle/Soyouz flights?

Anyway it would be good to have such section on the page that describes the money-aspect of the partnership - wich agency/country supplies what and when, in return for what, when, etc. Also - what is the state of Node3 - it is removed from the plan, but becouse it is a barter deal between NASA/ESA it looks like it will be build (by ESA) anyway (or is already built?), so maybe it would be launched someday after all other elements are on orbit?

[edit] X-38 Crew Return Vehicle

I think a more in-depth mention should be made to the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, the emergency lifeboat cancelled under false claims of budget over-runs by the Bush administration in 2001/2002 that would have allowed the ISS to have its originally planned 7 person crew and thus actually get some scientific work done as opposed to the current 2/3 person crew who spend the bulk of their time simply keeping it operational and are SOOL if there is an emergency and they need to leave in a Soyuz. – LamontCranston 05:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • The claims were far from false and the X-38 -- the project was far from even basic development. The X-38 wouldn't have allowed a 7 person crew either. However, a link to the X-38 article where these issues could be expanded on would be appropriate.

subzero788

  • Actually the reason the crew has been kept at two persons is due to supply issues; with the space shuttle grounded station resupply is dependant on soyuz and progress spacecraft that can deliver much less critical supplies such as food, water, oxygen, fuel etc than the space shuttle can. Regardless, at the moment the idea is to have a 6 man crew with two 3-man Soyuz "lifeboats" by 2008. It would be pointless having a 7 man crew anyway when both NASA's new crew exporation vehicle and the Russian Kliper will only be able to carry 6 astronauts.

[edit] Radio Call Sign Alpha Reason

The article says that Goldin was "stunned" when the first ISS crew requested the call sign "Alpha", but does not explain why. What is so stunning about the request? Why did the crew request the call sign? Could someone please elaborate on this? Thanks Jimaginator 11:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Try reading the immediately preceding paragraph. The request was undiplomatic because the Russians perceive the name as dismissive of their previous work. --noösfractal 17:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops. I read it, but didn't connect the two. I think I will have to give the next Wikipedian I see that didn't read an article carefully a break... Thanks. 66.95.139.107 18:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK choosed not to participate

Article reads: with members United Kingdom, ... choosing not to participate; But Expedition 1's crew picture lists UK flag. Why that? Or did they withdrew?

Just curious. Ilyak 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I find that strange too. Coz on other sites, such as Discovery Channel's ISS site, the UK and Portugal flag is on there. anon
The UK has signed the original agreement partaining to the ISS. However it is not an ESA member participating in the ISS project (thus the flag is there, but the UK still has no role in the program). Themanwithoutapast 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new element list is worse than the old, IMO

  1. CAM was not to be attached to Node3, but to Node2.
  2. maybe there are more factual errors.
  3. The previous list was much "cleaner" - details were on the elements main pages - now the section has very bad overview, compared to the previous version.
  • There is a link to the list of ISS modules launched and scheduled to be launched. Main articles on wikipedia should include text rather than lists. If someone wants to look at an overview, he should click on the ISS assembly list link or the table at the bottom of the section listing all the modules. Please point out other errors, so I can correct them. Thx. Themanwithoutapast 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
the Science Power Platform is missing from the "canceled" section.

[edit] FAC?

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

Leaving it a week until it's off the main page might be a good idea... Shimgray | talk | 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think to be a featured article it lacks (1) some legal background - the complicated structure of treaties between each space agency that regulate who has what rights and what obligations (2) a more detailed section on the truss structure and solar panels as well as the Canadaarm and ERA (3) a section on what kind of science has been done already and on what the future will focus at (4) a reference section on further materials (books, articles etc.). Thus said, I think it would make a good FA, but still has some way to go. Themanwithoutapast 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this should def be nominated, if its not quite there it won't get selected, but its certainly a strong candidate Jnb 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to do a peer review first. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costs section

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

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

[edit] Air pressure?

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

"During Monday's test, McArthur and Williams hauled their sleeping bags and other personal items into the elevator-sized Quest airlock, sealed the hatch behind them, and then lowered the pressure inside from the station's standard 14.7 pounds per square inch (psi) - or about the same as at sea level on Earth - to 10.2 psi, NASA officials said." [5] Do we need to mention something that is standard? Rmhermen 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The bulgarian ISS article (bg:Международна космическа станция) has information on air pressure and air composition (Кислород means oxygen and I guess Налягане might means total pressure or something like that): perhaps we could use that data after checking it from a more trusted source (which is what I'm looking for now, without too much success) or ask them directly where they took it. In general, a paragraph about living conditions (temperature, humidity...) might be a good idea. // Duccio (write me)
UPDATE: I added info about air pressure as I found a source. I'm not adding anything about temperature as I just discovered the bulgarian and italian ISS articles give different temperature values - we need to investigate more on that. // Duccio (write me)

[edit] Error

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

[edit] Featured

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

[edit] Many pictures and templates

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

[edit] Want more tech info

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

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

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

[edit] Language Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] USD or CAD?

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

[edit] Mir 2

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

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

[edit] Criticism section

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

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

[edit] To be used until...

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

How long do we need it for? I don't think we can easily say how long it could last. Mir lasted 15 years, twice as long as the ISS has been up so far, and probably could have lasted a good deal longer except for some accidents and the money issues. Here is a page about how they plan to do it, but not when. Rmhermen 17:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a NASA document which mention ISS end-of-life in 2016 (It will be 18 years old then, just a little older than MIR.) Rmhermen 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Visitors

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

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

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

I don't get how we're counting them: non-distinct means that if a guy flyes two times to the station he's counted twice. Article says The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 120 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station). which is wrong (example: Italy had two distinct visitors but three non-distinct). Perhaps we should say: ''The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 141 (non-distinct) and 120 (distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station).
// Duccio (write me) 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think all readers understand the difference between distinct and non-distinct, I thought it was short/long time visitors. If someone knew the distinct number of MIR visitors or for the comparison; MIR visitors for the first 5 ½ years, a better comparison is obtainable. --Necessary Evil 15:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand and share your point: a comparison based on distinct visitors would be better. Even better would be to put both numbers of visits, distinct and non distinct, in the article. Anyway, as long as we don't have the number of distinct visitors of the Mir, we can't keep The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of July 12, 2006, it has had 120 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station) as it is uncorrect and contradictory. I've edited, see if you like it. // Duccio (write me) 17:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The 'ISS Expeditions' paragraph is correct now. Now the readers are just waiting for you to figure out the number of Mir's distinct visitors ;-)
--Necessary Evil 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

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

  • 'one section is a stub' - someone added this after the article was GA nominated - I will remove it, because this information is actually in a separate article that is referenced in here. 'external jump conversion' - again about 40% of GA do have both cites and direct external jumps, an article should be sources, in which way does not matter - 'fn at the end of sentence' -> if a cite only refers to something specifically in that sentence it does not make sense to source the whole sentence, rather it would be wrong to do that. Themanwithoutapast 06:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • fixed the cites to 'standard' cite form and remedied your other points. Themanwithoutapast 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the section stub since this article lacked information on how life support is provided on the station, a key point in a space station article! Removing the section-stub was a bad move: this doesn't change the fact that we will have to write a paragraph on that, the lack is just less showy. // Duccio (write me) 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
from the GA criteria: the citation of its sources is essential" Rlevse 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
yes, citations ARE essential, but not their formating... Themanwithoutapast 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, didn't your edit fix the formatting too? // Duccio (write me) 18:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see footnote 5 for a sample. Fixing the two articles you nominated will only make them better, which is one reason why I suspect you nominated them. They have FA potential, but need work and I am only trying to help.Rlevse 02:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
GA Failed due to non compliance. Rlevse 23:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] expeditions

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

I am not sure why this actually needs to be clarified. This article is on the International Space Station. As outlined in the article there are multiple spacecrafts visiting the ISS, but there obviously is also a crew onboard the ISS permanently even when no Space Shuttle is docked to the station. That crew is Expedition X. Themanwithoutapast 20:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe Themanwithoutapast is right, anyway I've made a small explanation, just check my english as I might have made mistakes: International Space Station#ISS Expeditions. // Duccio (write me) 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Duccio. And Themanwithoutapast: it might be obvious to you, but was I just supposed to 'know' that Expedition means a crew? That's not what it means in the dictionary. Duccio: english looks good, I just changed a : to a ; 71.199.123.24 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense to clarify, if it is not totally clear to everyone. I did not want to offend anyyone. Cheers, Themanwithoutapast 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Lousy Apologists

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


Yes, the US has a wonderful track record in flying the European and Japanese modules, not to mention providing the Crew Return Vehicle. Perhaps you would like to read more about the topic before insisting on inserting your personal interpretation of history at the top. Shimgray | talk | 18:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
In addition, if this is the Truth, plain and unvarnished, I'm sure you can find a reliable source to quote saying so... Shimgray | talk | 18:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New material

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

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

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

[edit] Criticism

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

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

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

I've added a sentence after this statement referencing NASA's page for ISS spinoffs. I think there's probably a better way to state this in terms of balacing out the criticism. The criticism statement is very broad and implies that NASA takes credit for inventing things it did not. Viewing the many spinoff pages that NASA has, I don't think this is a fair assessment. NASA clearly states (espcially in its Spinoff publication) exactly how they contributed to a project, whether it be providing help to a company to improve something the company invented, provide the technology to kick start an invention by a company, or actually invent something themselves.
While this statement is a referenced criticism from a noted critic, it does not provide any evidence to support the broad claim. While I have not edited it to state that the criticism does not have any examples to support itself, I can see adding that in later. Cjosefy 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The list of ISS specific spinoffs is certainly not impressive. However, re-reading the paragraph, the criticisms seem to be aimed at the manned spaceflight program as a whole. When referencing NASA's claims it is framed not by what came from the ISS, but what has come from all of human spaceflight. With that in mind, I would probably change the NASA website reference to point to the main spinoff page which has much more information and far more impressive and substantial spinoffs. As it stands now, I think claiming the spinoffs from the ENTIRE NASA manned spaceflight program are not impresive, and then linking to just the ISS spinoffs is not terribly fair. I did not realize this yesterday.
Also, to be fair, the comment about "billions of dollar's worth of tangible benefits" is unsourced at worst, and at best may occur in the opinion article cited (and even there without any source to where this claim cam from). Since NASA has an entire spinoff website, it might be more effective to get some actual words from NASA that state what they claim the spinoff benefit has been. If we get that, the criticism from Park is more meaningful because it is framed in terms of what we show as NASA's own words. Cjosefy 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably what Park has in mind in particular is what NASA's allies in Congress (which is to say, most of it) say about spinoffs rather than NASA would put on their own web site. Of course on a static, official web page, they're going to be very technical and careful. But meanwhile the politicians who provide the money can justify it with all kinds of unsupported claims and outright nonsense. Look here [6] for example. Weldon and Culberson not only casually claim billions of dollars of spinoffs, they specifically credit the space shuttle and the space station with curing diseases. Thanks to NASA, we have artificial limbs, and new antibiotics, and all kinds of other wonderful new things to help suffering, hospitalized Americans. Park would say that NASA is fully complicit in this kind of talk, even if their own statements are more careful. After all, these Congressmen provide the money.

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

I agree that public perception probably overstates NASA's impact. To think that NASA invents all these things is wrong, but it is true that NASA technology has played a part in a great deal of commercial products. Artificial limbs have been helped by NASA technoloy. Computers have been helped by NASA technology.
I think a fair criticism would be that NASA and its supporters tend to overstate the direct benifits and spinoffs from the technology in order to gain funding, BUT there is no denying that NASA technology has played significant roles in numerous products. We shouldn't focus on the "billions of dollars" stuff because I believe if you actual find all products that have encorporated some sort of NASA technology you would probably come up with "billions of dollars" worth of stuff. Cjosefy 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Speed of the Spacestation

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

[edit] Space tools

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

This "Modified IFM Hacksaw" was not needed.
This "Modified IFM Hacksaw" was not needed.

[edit] Life Span of the ISS

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

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

[edit] how it will look in 2010?

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

[edit] Suggestions?

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

[edit] "ISS" page move & redirect

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

[edit] Some suggestions for improvement

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

  • The lead section contains a lot of information that may well be relevant to the article, but doesn't really belong in a basic introduction to the ISS.
Are the roles of Brazil and Italy really so important that they need mentioning here?
"(The actual height varies over time by several kilometres due to atmospheric drag and reboosts)" Is this caveat really needed in the introduction?
Could the introduction do with a paragraph on what the ISS is actually used for? The answer to this question is a bit vague, I know, but it seems important
The final paragraph of the lead reads a bit too much like a grab-bag of facts about the station. It needs recasting somehow; will think about how to do this.
  • Does the ISS=Space Station Alpha? The article doesn't make this clear.
  • Two paragraphs repeat each other in describing how construction began in November 1998. That only needs to be said once.
  • "when all four photovoltaic modules will be in their definitive position the aft-forward axis will be parallel to the velocity vector" I understood this, but thousands wouldn't. Could it somehow be rephrased?
  • A little more info on life support couldn't hurt, although this might not be a top priority. I understand there have been problems with the Elektron oxygen generator recently. Worth a mention?
  • Utilization: at present this section includes only information on the legal agreements that govern utilization. What is really needed is some information about what the ISS is actually used for, what sort of scientific research goes on there, generally what purpose it serves in the context of manned spaceflight.
  • Miscellaneous: in my opinion this section really isn't necessary. "Space tourism" fits logically under the heading of Utilization. And microgravity can be discussed in the context of what sort of scientific research is done on board.

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

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

[edit] Failed GA

1. Well-written? Fail

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

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

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

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

5. Stable? Pass

6. Images? Pass

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

[edit] current spaceflight?

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

I would think so, yes. MLilburne 08:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
So would I, and seeing as there is no opposistion, I am going to add it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 01:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's gonna be removed when STS-116 lands, right? // Duccio 22:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China

This article should probably mention the situation with China and the ISS. Reportedly, China wants in but the US says no. Not sure which section it belongs in. [7] [8] [9] [10] 211.28.57.101 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structural Changes to article

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

[edit] Time zone aboard?

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

Seems to be GMT/UTC [11][12]SeanMack 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins and start of the program

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

It wasn't quite so definite. The U.S. could never decide what they wanted (or would allow others to do.) See [13] for slightly more detail. Rmhermen 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Training section

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

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

[edit] Good Article

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

[edit] Micro-meteor(ite) shielding

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

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

[edit] Days in Occupation

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


Uhm, lets see, 2316 days from March 7 appears to just barely reach the start of November 2000, so no they did't count the Shuttle missions, or even the few days the shuttle was docked to *transfer* the first crew. I got the value from the NASA site counter.

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

[edit] A -Class

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

[edit] Magnitude

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

It depends on where you are looking from.--Taida 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well of course it does, but I'm looking for a general range. Mithridates 17:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I once red it'll be the brightest element (apparent magnitude) of the sky after the sun and the moon, once completed. // Duccio 18:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Read more here. // Duccio 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternational_Space_Station_a0e4.html"