This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Yeah, they're both fairly short and the scopes overlap enough. I'm down for it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion the articles are different enough to merit their own articles. I slightly altered the criticism section in the other article to target the ISS only rather than both the ISS and NASA. The distinction is made because NASA is responsible for a large number of projects not limited to the ISS. As such, the ISS's failure should not be blamed entirely on NASA. For example, NASA could cut funding for the project and ESA/JAXA/RSA could take over the project and that would be OK with me! TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I would like to point out that in many of the space articles such as Apollo 8, and others, the focus is entirely on the scientific aspects of a project rather than it's cost. It is important to take economics into consideration before attempting any project. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Those points are indeed correct, however, in response to the first point, the P&FA article deals with, in theory, ALL political of the station, including in Europe, Russia, etc., and so the criticism article would fit in well in the main article. As for the second point, that is indeed what we're doing - the primary International Space Station article deals with the hardware itself, whereas this article deals with political (including criticism) and financial issues. Colds7ream (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The best way, in my opinion, to expand the manned space program is to boost a large amount of supplies such as water, food, and equipment to the moon or mars before sending humans to colonize there. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree in principle that the Criticism article should be merged here, but I think that the criticism article is one sided, and has WP:POV issues. The criticisms are not countered, or discussed with people who are in favor of the ISS. Martin451 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I just can't see the ISS as being a sustainable living environment because of a number of flaws. 1) no propulsion, except from expensive space shuttle flights, 2) no natural ecosystem with plant life, 3) no power except solar panels, 4) rapid orbital decay. 5) See Lunar outpost (NASA) for a more worthwile mission TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but that's not what's being discussed here - this is a section for discussion on the merging of one article into another, not the pros and cons of the space station from the point of view of us. I agree on the POV, by the way - it's going to need some work. Colds7ream (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The layout with criticism in the "See Also" section is exactly the same as in the "Google" article. When I as a taxpayer am forced to pay 100 billion for a project of questionable credibility, I want those responsible to be held accountable. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of that comment... Colds7ream (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, having heard two voices in favour, I'm going to execute the merge. I feel that TeH nOmInAtOr raises good points about the operation of the station, but they don't seem to be relevant to the merge process itself. Further investigation shows this article to be an almost word-for-word copy of the Criticism section, and so I think we have a good case for merging. Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Conditional Support, I agree with moving, but we should wait until the RFC closes to determine whether "programme" or "program" should be used in the title. --GW… 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, and I an have it either way - "programme" or "program". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think a separate "programme" article should be written, since this deals more with the international politics of the station. Another article focusing more on the programme should be written. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the thing, you see - for this project, more than any other, it's the international politics that 'are the programme. Colds7ream (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Support. But only to International Space Station program. To my knowledge it is largely a joint U.S. - Russian program, with a smattering of EU and other participation. It is intentionally a broad international program, but I do not recall programme as being either a U.S. or Russian spelling. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Support, I think it is a good idea. It will allow us to make a proper distinction between the management aspects of the "concept" of the International Space Station, contrasted to the "object". While the latter is the most visible to many and should definitely be the main article, the program itself has many interesting elements that deserve a good article as well. This article is well suited for that basis I think. A good introduction to mark the difference between those two ideas however is KEY in avoiding confusion. Also, I was thinking that perhaps it might be an idea to call it International Space Station programs instead. Since it are actually many separate programs from several nations. The british vs. american issue is irrelevant and can easily be solved when the other discussion has reached it's end. I don't think anyone will mind if we extend that into this article. Most of this article is from the original ISS article anyways. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Please keep the language issue separate, it has no point in this discussion, this is about changing the very nature of this specific article. The language issue will be dealt with separately. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I decided to trim two of the three cite tags and removed them. I couldn't find any references in the main ISS article that had the information I removed. I doubt they would be missed. As for the third cite tag, I really think "In addition, the exchange rate between ruble and USD is not adequately giving a real comparison to what the costs for Russia really are." isn't needed, and is in violation of WP:OR. I hesitate on this last one only because it was Citation Needed this year instead of years ago. Cold7Realm, I know you suggested I wait, but I didn't trim out too much and thought this might be acceptable. Please revert if you disagree. Aalox (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The sentence (Zarya, although constructed and launched by Russia, has been paid for and is officially owned by NASA) I suggest this is not supported properly by any links. Ownership of the Zarya module is Russian, according to everything substantiated I can find. It's part of the ROS, and RSA has plans that include it's use for OPSEK.
Does anyone have any link or information to substantiate the claim that Zarya is owned by NASA, funding issues aside ?Penyulap (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 Russia plans to buy back Zarya and include it in OPSEK. If memmory serves, they were talking about trading soyuz services for Zarya, but as far as I know the OPSEK project is still up in the air. BTW, on matters like this, Google is your friend :) --U5K0 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)