This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I will finish up and refine the costs section later. Themanwithoutapast 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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))
Why isn't it a featured candidate? NCurse 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the "Ready to be nominated for feature article?" and "FAC?" posts above on this talk page. Vsst 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Probably what Park has in mind in particular is what NASA's allies in Congress (which is to say, most of it) say about spinoffs rather than NASA would put on their own web site. Of course on a static, official web page, they're going to be very technical and careful. But meanwhile the politicians who provide the money can justify it with all kinds of unsupported claims and outright nonsense. Look here [2] for example. Weldon and Culberson not only casually claim billions of dollars of spinoffs, they specifically credit the space shuttle and the space station with curing diseases. Thanks to NASA, we have artificial limbs, and new antibiotics, and all kinds of other wonderful new things to help suffering, hospitalized Americans. Park would say that NASA is fully complicit in this kind of talk, even if their own statements are more careful. After all, these Congressmen provide the money.
I think that there is a certain veritas in having an unsourced statement that there have been billions of dollars of tangible benefits. I'm not saying that Wikipedia itself should stay unsourced. Rather, there is clearly a widespread public belief, which is not properly sourced, that there is a mountain of great spinoffs. The belief is not quite consistent as to whether it's NASA as a whole that deserves credit, or all of human spaceflight at NASA, or the shuttle or space station specifically. So I think that this section should be rephrased to say something about intuitive perceptions about spinoffs, rather than only living in a world of sourced arguments. Greg Kuperberg 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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.
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?
I mean that they will let it crash on earth. It is impossible to ever bring something as large back to earth in any other way. Orion will service the space station between 2014 and 2016. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would be nice if someone puts in article computer-generated picture of completed station in 2010...
Is there any room or sense in ordinary people making suggestions for the space station? Mine would be to install an ion thruster like the one used on Smart-1 for compensating for atmospheric drag. In this way the station wouldn't need the occasional orbit boost using heavy & less efficient fuels and instead a continuous low thrust to fight the atmospheric drag would only improve the weightlessness (see Microgravity). 85.176.99.68 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion/Question: Why does the ISS not have a spare Space Vechicle permanently at the ISS, that could be used in an emergency to take people back to earth, and/or to go on a space rescue mission if necessary??
The page ISS, which is currently a disambig, is up for moving to ISS (disambiguation), with the page ISS being redirected here, on the grounds that this is the most common usage. Please share your opinions at Talk:ISS. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Spotted this article on the GA candidates list and thought I'd offer a little feedback...
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)
1. Well-written? Fail
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)
should this article have the {{ Current spaceflight}} tag on it? Mlm42 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should probably mention the situation with China and the ISS. Reportedly, China wants in but the US says no. Not sure which section it belongs in. [3] [4] [5] [6] 211.28.57.101 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
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)
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 have updated this article to Good Article Class. It is now neccessery to:
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)
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)
Really it makes more sense to count whenever human beings are aboard. Sagittarian Milky Way 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this article is now in the a-class on the assesment scale Jer10 95 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I think I can recall that the ISS was originally thought to be completed by 2006. Is that true? Astroguy2 08:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose creating a Pressurized modules of the International Space Station article, and moving the sections of the International Space Station article which cover the modular structure of the station there. The reason for this is that the International Space Station article is quite long, and there is sufficient material about the modular structure to create a new article from it. Would anyone care to discuss this before action is taken? ( sdsds - talk) 02:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
All morning I've been seeing news reports about serious problems with attitude control on the ISS. I don't have any expertise in this area, and if no one else wants to do it I can come back later and find sources, but this is what I've heard: The Russian computers that control the station's orbit are all down, and as of now, the Space Shuttle is being used as a manual control. The Shuttle can only remain in orbit for about fifteen more days, for reasons I haven't heard stated, and if the computers aren't back online at that time the crew of the ISS may be forced to abandon the station and return on the Shuttle. This all comes as the Shuttle crew is attempting to repair that damaged thermal blanket. PaladinWhite 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ reqdiagram}} It's a bit confusing to figure out on first reading what components were in the original design, which are in the current design, which have been launched, and which have yet to be launched. A unifying diagram or two would be very helpful. -- Beland 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What OS are they running?
Shouldn't this read "There is no fixed percentage of ownership" ? User:Pedant 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[10] This nasa site is a good source for people who want to add some info about the life and science systems of the ISS. Might be useful if we ever want to get those Living aboard ISS and Science aboard ISS pages off the ground. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the table in the Current assembled components section. It is quite similar to the table in the ISS assembly sequence article. What motivates having this material in two locations? ( sdsds - talk) 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just added a whole Scientific Research section. I came to the page looking for information about the research done on the ISS and when I couldn't find any and I read other people's requests for a section about it, I decided to spend a while and write one up. If anyone is interested in adding to it or providing more specific data for this or a subset of this article, [11] and [12] are good places to look for more (so far) unused information (this is also noted in a comment in the article). You can use this section for discussion on the new section if you wish. Thanks! -- pie4all88 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the station statistics section the Orbital Altitude is stated as 101.3kPa - which is a pressure (probably the internal) not a height. Anybody got the Altitude ? Muzzah 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is cleaner (last sentence):
The International Space Station (ISS) is a research facility currently being assembled in space. The station is in a low Earth orbit ( Box orbit) and can be seen from earth with the naked eye: its altitude varies from 319.6 km to 346.9 km above the surface of the Earth (approximately 199 miles to 215 miles). It travels at an average speed of 27,744 km (17,240 miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day. The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States ( NASA), Russia ( RKA), Japan ( JAXA), Canada, ( CSA) and Europe ( ESA).[4]
If no one objects I'll just change it in a bit. Topher0128 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments? ( sdsds - talk) 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States ( NASA), Russia ( RKA), Japan ( JAXA), Canada, ( CSA), and the inter-governmental European Space Agency.
Spacecraft Operations: $800 million consisting of $125 million for each of software, extravehicular activity systems, and logistics and maintenance. An additional $150 million is spent on flight, avionics and crew systems. The rest of $250 million goes to overall ISS management.
This calculation is incorrect.
The constituent costs do not add up to the total.
$125 million X 3
+ $150 million + $250 million = $775 million
I am concerned this article fails to meet attribute 3a of the "good article" requirements. It does not address at least one major aspects of the topic, namely: station-keeping propulsion. I feel this is a serious ommission; serious enough that I wouldn't oppose a formal GA delisting review. Of course adding material covering this aspect would fix the concern, but the article is already marked as being "too long". What's the right way to approach this catch-22? ( sdsds - talk) 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How can this article be too long? It is the International Space Station for pete's sake! Of course there is going to be a lot to say about it. Andy120290 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
I will finish up and refine the costs section later. Themanwithoutapast 06:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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))
Why isn't it a featured candidate? NCurse 05:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Read the "Ready to be nominated for feature article?" and "FAC?" posts above on this talk page. Vsst 01:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Probably what Park has in mind in particular is what NASA's allies in Congress (which is to say, most of it) say about spinoffs rather than NASA would put on their own web site. Of course on a static, official web page, they're going to be very technical and careful. But meanwhile the politicians who provide the money can justify it with all kinds of unsupported claims and outright nonsense. Look here [2] for example. Weldon and Culberson not only casually claim billions of dollars of spinoffs, they specifically credit the space shuttle and the space station with curing diseases. Thanks to NASA, we have artificial limbs, and new antibiotics, and all kinds of other wonderful new things to help suffering, hospitalized Americans. Park would say that NASA is fully complicit in this kind of talk, even if their own statements are more careful. After all, these Congressmen provide the money.
I think that there is a certain veritas in having an unsourced statement that there have been billions of dollars of tangible benefits. I'm not saying that Wikipedia itself should stay unsourced. Rather, there is clearly a widespread public belief, which is not properly sourced, that there is a mountain of great spinoffs. The belief is not quite consistent as to whether it's NASA as a whole that deserves credit, or all of human spaceflight at NASA, or the shuttle or space station specifically. So I think that this section should be rephrased to say something about intuitive perceptions about spinoffs, rather than only living in a world of sourced arguments. Greg Kuperberg 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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.
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?
I mean that they will let it crash on earth. It is impossible to ever bring something as large back to earth in any other way. Orion will service the space station between 2014 and 2016. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Would be nice if someone puts in article computer-generated picture of completed station in 2010...
Is there any room or sense in ordinary people making suggestions for the space station? Mine would be to install an ion thruster like the one used on Smart-1 for compensating for atmospheric drag. In this way the station wouldn't need the occasional orbit boost using heavy & less efficient fuels and instead a continuous low thrust to fight the atmospheric drag would only improve the weightlessness (see Microgravity). 85.176.99.68 21:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a suggestion/Question: Why does the ISS not have a spare Space Vechicle permanently at the ISS, that could be used in an emergency to take people back to earth, and/or to go on a space rescue mission if necessary??
The page ISS, which is currently a disambig, is up for moving to ISS (disambiguation), with the page ISS being redirected here, on the grounds that this is the most common usage. Please share your opinions at Talk:ISS. --GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Spotted this article on the GA candidates list and thought I'd offer a little feedback...
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)
1. Well-written? Fail
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)
should this article have the {{ Current spaceflight}} tag on it? Mlm42 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should probably mention the situation with China and the ISS. Reportedly, China wants in but the US says no. Not sure which section it belongs in. [3] [4] [5] [6] 211.28.57.101 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I 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)
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)
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)
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 have updated this article to Good Article Class. It is now neccessery to:
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)
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)
Really it makes more sense to count whenever human beings are aboard. Sagittarian Milky Way 08:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is this article is now in the a-class on the assesment scale Jer10 95 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I think I can recall that the ISS was originally thought to be completed by 2006. Is that true? Astroguy2 08:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I propose creating a Pressurized modules of the International Space Station article, and moving the sections of the International Space Station article which cover the modular structure of the station there. The reason for this is that the International Space Station article is quite long, and there is sufficient material about the modular structure to create a new article from it. Would anyone care to discuss this before action is taken? ( sdsds - talk) 02:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
All morning I've been seeing news reports about serious problems with attitude control on the ISS. I don't have any expertise in this area, and if no one else wants to do it I can come back later and find sources, but this is what I've heard: The Russian computers that control the station's orbit are all down, and as of now, the Space Shuttle is being used as a manual control. The Shuttle can only remain in orbit for about fifteen more days, for reasons I haven't heard stated, and if the computers aren't back online at that time the crew of the ISS may be forced to abandon the station and return on the Shuttle. This all comes as the Shuttle crew is attempting to repair that damaged thermal blanket. PaladinWhite 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
{{ reqdiagram}} It's a bit confusing to figure out on first reading what components were in the original design, which are in the current design, which have been launched, and which have yet to be launched. A unifying diagram or two would be very helpful. -- Beland 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What OS are they running?
Shouldn't this read "There is no fixed percentage of ownership" ? User:Pedant 08:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[10] This nasa site is a good source for people who want to add some info about the life and science systems of the ISS. Might be useful if we ever want to get those Living aboard ISS and Science aboard ISS pages off the ground. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the table in the Current assembled components section. It is quite similar to the table in the ISS assembly sequence article. What motivates having this material in two locations? ( sdsds - talk) 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Just added a whole Scientific Research section. I came to the page looking for information about the research done on the ISS and when I couldn't find any and I read other people's requests for a section about it, I decided to spend a while and write one up. If anyone is interested in adding to it or providing more specific data for this or a subset of this article, [11] and [12] are good places to look for more (so far) unused information (this is also noted in a comment in the article). You can use this section for discussion on the new section if you wish. Thanks! -- pie4all88 12:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In the station statistics section the Orbital Altitude is stated as 101.3kPa - which is a pressure (probably the internal) not a height. Anybody got the Altitude ? Muzzah 14:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this is cleaner (last sentence):
The International Space Station (ISS) is a research facility currently being assembled in space. The station is in a low Earth orbit ( Box orbit) and can be seen from earth with the naked eye: its altitude varies from 319.6 km to 346.9 km above the surface of the Earth (approximately 199 miles to 215 miles). It travels at an average speed of 27,744 km (17,240 miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day. The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States ( NASA), Russia ( RKA), Japan ( JAXA), Canada, ( CSA) and Europe ( ESA).[4]
If no one objects I'll just change it in a bit. Topher0128 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Comments? ( sdsds - talk) 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States ( NASA), Russia ( RKA), Japan ( JAXA), Canada, ( CSA), and the inter-governmental European Space Agency.
Spacecraft Operations: $800 million consisting of $125 million for each of software, extravehicular activity systems, and logistics and maintenance. An additional $150 million is spent on flight, avionics and crew systems. The rest of $250 million goes to overall ISS management.
This calculation is incorrect.
The constituent costs do not add up to the total.
$125 million X 3
+ $150 million + $250 million = $775 million
I am concerned this article fails to meet attribute 3a of the "good article" requirements. It does not address at least one major aspects of the topic, namely: station-keeping propulsion. I feel this is a serious ommission; serious enough that I wouldn't oppose a formal GA delisting review. Of course adding material covering this aspect would fix the concern, but the article is already marked as being "too long". What's the right way to approach this catch-22? ( sdsds - talk) 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How can this article be too long? It is the International Space Station for pete's sake! Of course there is going to be a lot to say about it. Andy120290 03:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)