Talk:International Space Station

Picture proposition

Tracy Caldwell Dyson in the Cupola module of the International Space Station observing the Earth below.

Hi, I would like to get this picture into the article. I think it's a really nice photo from the ISS but don't know which section it would fit into. Thoughts?--U5K0 (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a nice one, but I don't think it easily fits in anywhere, to be honest... :-S Colds7ream (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking in the Life on board section. But I really love this picture because it remind me of a few movies so I'm not the most objective person on this issue... so if noone thinks it fits in, there's no point in doing that. Thanks for the feedback :D--U5K0 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Where abouts did you find the image? I can't find it in NASA's galleries... Colds7ream (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It was on one of the ISS crewmembers' twiter account. It's over a month old. here it is --U5K0 (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's another link to the image http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-24/html/iss024e014263.html

--Craigboy (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a lovely picture, and I support its inclusion conditional on copyright issues, I want to note, her good acting gives the viewer an impression of artificial gravity. But with humanity's tendency for self-sabotage, Earth orbit may never be suitable for tethers, so the real deal for this leisurely pose may have a red or grey backdrop. It is quite inspiring regardless. Penyulap (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Altitude

Useful article on operating altitudes of the station in future: [1] Colds7ream (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy on the ISS?

The lead and scientific research sections of this article, and the overview section of Scientific research on the ISS, all include the claim that 'The primary fields of research include [..] astronomy' (or rephrasings of this). But none of the three sources given support this claim, and the Scientific research on the ISS article does not mention a single piece of astronomy research. Note that space exploration is not a subfield astronomy, and the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is a particle physics experiment. Have I missed something, or should the mention of astronomy be removed? Modest Genius ^talk 20:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Most number of spacecraft docked?

What is the most number of spacecraft to be docked to the station at one time.. is five a new record? Will six break the record in a few days? In STS-133's post-launch press conference it sounded like it's the "busiest" the station has ever been. Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually NASA tried to get the Russians to use one of their spacecrafts to take a picture of the station with spacecrafts from the four countries at one time, but he the idea was nixed. Take a look at the first paragraph under the Visiting Spacecraft section. It lists the current 5 spacecrafts that can dock. Hopefully some time next year we will add 2 more from the USA after we retire the Space Shuttle. user:mnw2000 15:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Most expensive object

The article about the world's most expensive objects was recently deleted, and it appears to nobody (other than Wikipedia) has claimed the ISS is, in fact, the world's most expensive "object". Some examples from history come to mind that could rival it.. how expensive was the great pyramid of giza, exactly? The sentence in the article should be reworded to better reflect the sources. Mlm42 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Utilisation rights

Hi everyone, I have had concern for a very long time about the diagram in the Utilisation rights section, I suggest it gives the majority of new users and casual browsers the idea that most of the station hardware is allocated to NASA, the word 'american' I would suggest needs to be inside the diagram, rather than as a comment. Or, all modules should be shown, or a station summary should be shown. The title 'international space station hardware' I suggest is misleading to casual readers who miss the comment outside the diagram.Penyulap (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As the diagram stands, the caption is incorrect. Unless we replace the diagram with one showing the entire station, I suggest changing the caption to "Allocation of non-Russian Federation segment hardware utilisation between nations" or similar. If you concur, please make the change. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify, that we are talking about the caption within the diagram, rather than the text caption under the diagram. It's the caption contained within the diagram, that I believe is contrary to neutrality. Until a more appropriate diagram can be found or made, I'd suggest removing the diagram as a temporary measure. Penyulap (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've specified the USOS in the title. Colds7ream (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello colds7ream, yes USOS is mentioned in the comment below the diagram, the Diagram itself contains the words 'international space station hardware' which I am suggesting is prominent and unclear. I suggest that some readers will read the text contained within the diagram and fail to read the qualifying comment below the diagram. I suggest the text within the diagram could be worded to reflect what the diagram shows, without relying on reading other text, Or the diagram itself could be modified to show 'international space station hardware' in a way that represents a majority of modules, or a majority of hardware, instead of only 4 out of 16? of the stations modules. Penyulap (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I already added 'USOS' to the title in the image itself; that's what I said above. Colds7ream (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Colds7ream, thats a big improvement, (My browser was fetching from cache, oops)Penyulap (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of heavens-above website or wikipage link

I'd like to suggest a link to the wikipage, or preferably direct to the non-profit site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavens-Above or www.heaven-above.com respectively.

I'd like to suggest this location, breaking one sentence into two.:

With a greater cross-sectional area than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye,[8] websites such as heavens-above give time and direction details to do this. The ISS is by far the largest artificial satellite that has ever orbited Earth.

Please assist me with grammar correction if it is incorrect. I recommend this site as it has operated for at least ten years that I know of, with an impeccable reputation. It is of great assistance to new ISS fans, as they can often walk outside and see the station with their 'naked eye'. Penyulap (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assembly / Deorbit

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

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

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

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

Made a correction to the assembly section, the sentence "These two Space Shuttle flights each added segments of the station's Integrated Truss Structure, which provided the embryonic station with communications, guidance, electrical grounding (on Z1), and power via solar arrays located on the P6 truss." which tends to imply these services were not already existing. Although it's technically just ambiguous, it needs clarity in the wording. Also, what is meant by electrical grounding ? for Electrical and electronics, the phrase is not used that way. The Zvezda module has a little added detail. The existing link [2] (at the current time) provides no useful informationPenyulap (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ISS orbit animation

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

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

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

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

Window

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

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

Thanks, I feel confident now. I have a scapegoat for any mischief I cause in future 8P (slightly kidding)Penyulap (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pressurised volume?

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

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

Here we are:

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

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