User talk:Penyulap

ISS article workspace · M3 Project workspace · Fleet workspace · sandbox · scroll

Emergency Yap shutoff button

Administrators: Use this button if Penyulap is malfunctioning. (direct link)

Welcome to Penyulap's Museum of Yap and Waffle, current exhibits.

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

Template:International Space Station structure

Almost done, its easy parts though, lol (I can't fully understand this image which is my source). That tool which I previously told you is a bit buggy so I'm using this one. Also ROS is in a good shape now (sample). Don't worry if you don't like it's design, that's easy to change (I've created some here). --Z 17:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and about User talk:Penyulap/Fleet workspace, that's not possible and also using bot is not a good way for several reasons (many wikis even don't have interwiki bots. Mainly because BRFA process can be a headache) so I think the best way is doing it manually (you can put that table in a template so it would be easier to maintain and update across different wikis). --Z 17:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's brilliant, I wasn't aware you could add buttons like that, it's an eye-opener. I had previously been thinking of putting each image on a page with a longer description for some items, and navigation textual help, now there is a great deal more real estate to work with, more choices to be made. The largest image, I think we will probably settle on a version of it that when zoomed, comes in close to the station with little blackspace to look through. If it is cropped square, it should probably cut off some of the stations solar panels, they'd run off the end of the picture out of view, as they aren't important. I'd figure the landing from clicking on the zoom tool should be reasonably close to something that can be viewed, maybe even messing up the blackspace with an infobox that goes in that corner, but that's all to worry about later I think.

What I need to do now is find a lot of pictures so we can label. There is a pic of the Soyuz here and I need more pics of everything, similar to that, to find them and list them, so you and everyone else have the resources we will need, even I don't have them just yet.

How do I use a template that contains a table across wikis? which server would it go on, as I think I tried and couldn't work it out, they just go red. Penyulap_talk 23:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please join #wikipedia[1] (or wherever you want) IRC channel? --Z 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions

You assuming there's an APAS mechanism on Zvevda

The Zarya and Zvezda ones would have slight mission-specific mods, Penyulap
Zvezda does not have an APAS mechanism, and Zarya only has one (which connects it to USOS).Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Yep, your right there, one point to Craigboy :) Penyulap_talk

You assuming there are "lots" of different versions of APAS and your "penyulap skills" telling you they are all pretty much compatible.

there are lots of different versions [of APAS], Penyulap
There really is only three.Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Three is lots. besides, I'm sure there are other versions we don't know of offhand. Plus my penyulap skills tell me that the different versions are pretty much compatible, and we won't find it referenced either way, not easily. Penyulap 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No Pen, these were the only three ever used. APAS-75 in no way would be able to dock with APAS-89, the petals are completely different, the diameters are different and the hooks don't line up. Not to mention the last APAS-75 docking was in 1975, and the first APAS-89 docking was in 1993. And there would be no reason for APAS-89/95 to be compatible with APAS-75 because it wasn't even in use after 1976.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Naa, Jury is still out on that one. There are lots more besides those, some with fancy names some only on paper, like for Buran. The pinouts for the connectors would use mission specific designations, pipes and tubes and stuff would vary (if there are any) according to mission. Penyulap_talk

There's variations within the the three, but not a lot. I don't consider paper ideas worth noting because of the near endless amount of proposed modifications to any space hardware. I don't think designation means what you think it does. Expand of the mission specific modifications you think exist.Craigboy (talk)

(more on this below) Penyulap_talk

You assuming APAS-75 is compatible with APAS-89/95.

You could call it 'apas compatible' but every version of APAS is apas compatiblePenyulap
Only APAS-75 is not.Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh I'm thinking it is myself. Wasn't that the one used on that whole Apollo-Soyuz (Or reversed in Russian, as Soyuz-Apolla, lol) mission thing. There was like one Russian designed APAS-75 on each craft and the whole thing went down smooth, without any embarassing moments in space where they found out that APAS-75 was not APAS compatible ? Penyulap 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) hey wait, your assuming I'm assuming 75 and 89 are compatible. I'm saying every one they make joins up to something, that's for a start. like the soyuz and the apollo ones. you know, no embarassing moments. but here...

(hey wow, I just saw how long this section is, WOW, this is amazing !) Umm, ok, compatible in the way there'd be fewer variations on the mechanical parts, so you could get one meant for one mission and slam it into another for some other mission, and they'd dock and hold, but the wiring wouldn't work. Like that, not all of them though, but fewer mechanical 'strike plate' variations than connector variations (electrical or liquid, gas options). Penyulap_talk

APAS can't transfer liquid. The connectors for any APAS-89/95 mechanism would match to themselves. There's really only three sub variations, one with soft docking latches and pressure seals (Space Shuttle), one with soft docking latches but no pressure seals (Krystall) and one with no soft docking latches and no pressure seal (PMA-2,PMA-3, Zarya).--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'APAS can't transfer liquid.' will be proven wrong in future. Androgynous systems are not going out of style anytime soon, and refueling and re-gassing are the norm for many craft. I think the different perspective here is causing the trouble. I see APAS as an abbreviation of Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System, a generic term, but your limiting yourself to the period of '75<->'15 ? So for you it's like a trademarked name, for me it's just Androgynous. Would that be about right ? Not that we are wrong, but that we are seeing things from those different perspectives. Penyulap_talk

I didn't say APAS couldn't modified to support liquid transfer. APAS is not a generic term for androgynous docking systems.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call it then ? I managed "Bisexual" and we couldn't use that as a technical generic term. Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System is pretty good. Penyulap_talk

You could just call other androgynous docking mechanisms simply androgynous docking mechanisms. I hope you're not offend by me asking but is not English not your first language, because if its not then I can totally understand why you're getting hung up on this.--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not offended, but I haven't mentioned the answer to the personal question anywhere I don't think. However it is fair and true to say that there are a number of factors that make communications somewhat difficult with some native english speaking editors, but with very many that is not the case. I do think I can reach further across language barriers than most people I've seen on English wiki, I have very many times rescued and translated comments by other editors where people have labeled their comments as vandalism or some such because they didn't understand what was being communicated. 'Language barriers' are something people can create between themselves and another person who speaks the same language a perfect example is say, an artist and an engineer, or soldier and priest, it is easy for them to give up on each other and say 'I have no idea what he is trying to say'. Or if you take a businessman and strand him in the middle of a ghetto he can't speak the same language and will be misinterpreted. I can communicate with people who wish to communicate, but some people don't want to. (probably why some ISS editors can't see any other editors who disagree with them for years). Docking isn't really the same as Peripheral Assembly is it though, it's somewhat different. I'd generally think that docking is more a Soyuz kind of thing although yes they use a probe, and assembly is more a module to module assembly thing. Penyulap_talk

So are you a native English speaker?--Craigboy (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assuming that APAS mechanism was used in over 200 dockings when that's obviously not the case.

Two ways, One as a simple indicator that the APAS system is used for other things rather than just the shuttle. Recall if you will STS-135 was the last mission, so 200 dockings can't have been performed by the NASA shuttle even if every one of it's trips went to the ISS. It's a fair indication that there is more to the story. Instant indication that there is more to be researched. Two, as for the peacock term, I'd say 'many is understated' if after all many is the wrong word to describe 200 dockings, what would be said of the shuttle docking system ? it's seldom-used ? that wouldn't go down well with readers. I'm thinking whatever the shuttle uses has been used 'many times' and something that has been used more often than that can have a 'many' or something even better. Penyulap 02:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Pen its a bad source. The 200 dockings statement probably wasn't even meant to be about APAS, how could it be? Since APAS was mostly only used for the Shuttle program. The 200 dockings probably meant to be about the Probe/Drogue system. Many was only a peacock term for "...China, Europe and Russia have a co-operative relationship in many space exploration projects" because they have only done a few missions together.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an agent moulder moment, research Craigboy, because 'the truth is out there' C 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
And you shouldn't be looking for it from an author who has no history on writing articles on spaceflight.Craigboy (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Hey, I totally had a cite for that and everything, you know, the nice old man who died and all, if your going to try and tell me there are less than 200 dockings, you go get a cite, fair is fair. Penyulap_talk

You had a cite that had almost no correct info. The 200 number is so huge its laughable. Do you know how many missions used APAS?--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See below Penyulap_talk

APAS is not a generic term for androgynous docking systems.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nor is "Bisexual" a good term for Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System. Penyulap_talk

See above.--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-(')-(')- Penyulap_talk

You assuming that Zarya forward is a usable docking port, you assuming a docking adapter could be built and launched in three months.

Sweet, but only if you find a proper ref that says they can't be uncovered, or new ones can't be sent in preparation for the Chinese visit, or new arrangements cannot be made in preparation for the Chinese visit. Then and only then the statement 'the Chinese could dock in future' would be incorrect. If the Chinese and the Europeans or the Chinese and the Russians especially wanted to do a Apollo-Soyuz historic handshake in space they could do it in 3 months prep time, but why bother ? there is no big rift to cross. They don't go boasting about what is possible they just get on with doing it, with small announcements of what they are about to do. Saying this and that is possible is not their style, for either of these superpowers. Penyulap 02:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If the Zarya is disconnected from PMA-1, than it would no longer be the International Space Station. Russia uses different docking ports so they're not compatible like the source says. "Then and only then the statement 'the Chinese could dock in future' would be incorrect." No because it can dock with USOS. You would not be able to build and launch an adapter in three months.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Zarya forward IS a usable docking port, and it IS being used. Naturally if you want to dock a few chinese modules or craft to it, you'd want to jettison the USOS first. It's an alarming idea for sure, and would possibly come as a surprise to anyone in Kibo at the time (I don't think there is a button on the Zvezda console for it. I wonder if they could try to grab the ROS with a robot arm on the USOS before their air ran out?), but hey, jettisoning the USOS is an option that has been tossed about a number of times in end-of-mission planning. Plenty of times where NASA funding is looking less than stellar, they've considered abandoning the project, how many times has that happened ? Then the Russians think what options do we have ? They can either come up with a shiny new space station at short notice and limited budgets or they can keep on using the ROS, which is designed for refurbishment. (though I think it'd get just as ratty and dilapidated as MIR was eventually, but it'd do until they got something better on orbit)

3 months prep time IS enough, WHEN there is a burning need for it. Docking ports don't need to take forever to slap together, the Russians have done complete missions in short times like that, to celebrate past events I think. The Russians and Chinese are good friends. Flight time between the two countries is short, the engineers are known for working together well (Phobos) so arranging a different docking port on the shenzhou is not going to take a million years. Pack up a bit of equipment and Russian engineers, send em over with a kurs or two and whatever else is required and there you go.

THe whole 'the Chinese could dock in future' is a broad unqualified statement which is far too easy to make true. I suggested 3 months, they can take 10 years and it's still true. Penyulap_talk

Its not usable because a module is berthed there and cannot be berthed anywhere else. Zarya is not meant to be re-used, ISS funding is secured through 2020. I thought you referring adding a docking adapter to the ISS?

Is there an American presidential election before 2020 ? If there is, and there is a new president, it's harder to say, as each end every president turns the whole space program upside down. (btw if you use three little squiggles instead of four to sign with it leaves the date off) Penyulap_talk

Its extremely unlikely any president would abandon the ISS before 2020.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go their girlfriend. That is a Craigboy wild assumption right there. :) I love it, but when has there ever been a presidential decision in America that Americans ever liked ?

But ok, I'll go along with it, (sarcasm) the next US President won't make any bad decisions or dissapoint the public in any way, or at least it's 100% unlikely. would you believe 'Its extremely unlikely', how about 'most probable', no, 'wait and see' ? hmm.. Penyulap_talk

Has there been any talk of abandoning it before then?--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They save that up for after the election, but you may mean have they mentioned it already, well yes many times there is discussion on that, everytime there is any kind of crisis and so forth. but it's just talk. Penyulap_talk

Do you have a source?--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go look for some. hey you haven't commented on the good stuff we have done yet ! Penyulap_talk

You defending information that has been verified as being incorrect and you showing strong bias

His highly reliable electromechanical systems, which included the Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System, the proper name of the docking system, in addition to onboard manipulators and reusable solar arrays, are among the jewels of the Russian space program.

His docking system was first tried out on unmanned spacecraft in 1967 or 1968, he told the publication Space News, then on two manned capsules in 1969. It successfully docked more than 200 missions and has never had a failure in space
— [2]

The source is inaccurate which is why you should avoid non-space flight publications. APAS-75 was the first APAS mechanism but it wasn't used until the 1974 (unmanned test for the Apollo-Soyuz mission). The manned mission your quote is mentioning Soyuz 4/Soyuz 5, this used a very early version of the Russian Probe and Drogue (which Vladimir Syromyatnikov also worked on) that is used today.Craigboy (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the source, it is clear the person has done more research into APAS and is a better source than if the front page of the NASA website itself said "APAS was used to dock the shuttle to the ISS". A well researched point made by some little person beats a misleading half-truth from the NASA website. Penyulap 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Pen are you serious? They got many basic things wrong (and the author is by no means an expert on the subject, but yet you take here word but not that of the engineers at Boeing). Your politcal ideolgies seem to be getting in the way of your objectivism.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes I'm serious, Patricia is giving lots of leads and facts you can use to do further checking. Thats great. The Boeing 'engineers' as you call them, use the word 'clone' in a manner that defines the text book dictionary definition of 'unsubstantiated claim' it's an offhanded insult or a sloppy guess at best. Penyulap 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Biased? everyone is biased in some way, how do you mean ? which way ? I'm not saying the washington post or Patricia is particularly great, I'm just saying what craft is she referring to back in 67 and 68. I'm thinking there is a craft back then which uses an APAS docking system.

Where I think were on different pages is that you only want to recognize some of the APAS mechs as APAS mechs. APAS is like saying 'Bisexual' so 'Chris-75' and 'kim-89' are both bisexual, but they are not the only ones. There were bisexuals back in 67 and 68, 'Vlad' and 'boris' if you like. You can't just say there aren't 200 APAS because you can only find Chris and Kim, or only Chris and Kim are bi. Penyulap_talk

Pen, you have no idea what you're talking about.--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean you have no idea what I'm talking about. I know what I'm talking about, I have ready access to the ideas inside my head. It's a matter of explaining them to you, that is all. The APAS don't come in 'male or female' kind of versions do they, so if you have 3 89's they can each dock with each other, yes ? other systems have separate kinds, plug and socket kind of thing where plugs don't fit to plugs they fit only to sockets. like that, yes ? so far so good ? Penyulap_talk

There was no APAS in the 60s. It was first used in 74' as a test for the ASTP. APAS is not a general term for a androgynous docking system. There were no androgynous docking mechanisms in the the 60s. There are sub-variations of APAS that are not truly androgynous (Krstall, PMA-2, PMA-3, Tiangong-1 if you consider that to be APAS).--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know enough about their lunar docking mechs, except they weren't probe type. I'd say though, if we go for a consensus between saying that APAS was used just for the NASA shuttle, which isn't true, and how many Androgynous mechs there were, which is hard to cite (there were like 8 Burans built for one that flew, so how many APAS mechs were made for all the different programs and all the different craft is like anyone's guess) and sum up with what is clear we'll have it.

Something like the spaceflight now line "The Shenzhou docking collar is similar to the Russian-designed APAS system, which was used in the joint U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the assembly of the Russian space station Mir and by space shuttles visiting the International Space Station." is I think a pretty ok summary, although it leaves out Buran. Actually I think that the Nasa shuttle used the exact mech and module that was designed for Buran to dock to Mir wasn't it? But we can just stick to mentioning flown variants of the APAS system, as people like the orbital brightline (Although someone did change the lede of the ISS from an orbital brightline to a habitable brightline, which was cool, and I never argued the point, as it is still true). We can stick it into a note if you like, so it saves space in the article, and in the china section we could just put "similar to APAS" although it IS an Androgynous mech, without a doubt, when you look at APAS being an acronym for a generic description of a mech. But when you name a mech, saying '75 then it is specific to that mech, and then you can't say the chinese use an '89, you CAN say they use an APAS, but it would be a 'Shenzhou APAS' for sure, or whatever their academy is calling it. Penyulap_talk

The Kontakt docking system was non-androgynous. I never said the fully androgynous variant of APAS-89/95 was used only for the Shuttle, I listed the Shuttle because it was the most recognizable, since Soyuz only flew with the APAS-89 system once. "The Shenzhou docking collar is similar to the Russian-designed APAS system, which was used in the joint U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project". It's much more similar to the APAS-89/95 docking collar.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it's kind of more respectful to not to give the impression that (the Nasa shuttle) was the reason it was invented. The above would address that, but it's good to mention both at least, or the three or so you can think of in a note, depending where it is. Penyulap_talk

I wasn't talking about the article, I was trying to explain it to you.--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Penyulap_talk

Also, if you notice a distinct bias, what would you say is the direction of the difference between us, because it's good for editors to compliment each other, I like it. I think that many editors are kind of NASA fans, I am too, but also have a wider view, like Japanese and Russian and so forth, I think it helps fill in the gaps in a global picture. Like with the origins section mentioned below. Would you think that is it ? or I'm too into humor, and that it's more a Russian humor than American ? Penyulap_talk

I don't understand.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might not understand what you mean by 'and you showing strong bias' Penyulap_talk

Bias has a negative meaning associated with it but you took it as a compliment.--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I can't see it that way easily though, because by definition everyone IS biased, there is no getting around that. Without biased editors who can communicate and co-operate you get only one narrow point of view. When you combine many biased viewpoints you get a fuller better picture of something. There is a story about a group of 5 blind men and one elephant they come across when they are walking, the first one feels the elephant and says it's like a tree, it's thick and round and solid coming up out of the ground, the next takes a feel and says, no it's like a big fan it's thin and large and moves through the air quickly keeping me cool, the next says no, it's like a snake, it's round and long and flexible and curls back upon itself. The other said it's large like a stone of such a large size, and another said, no it's small like a cord i can hold it in my hand it's hairy at the end. (he had the tail) So who was correct ? who can describe it the best ? which one is the expert ? I will have a look at those refs in a little while and find the (easy) ones you request too. Penyulap_talk

You assuming Shenzhou can't be manually docked and a few other things.

It'll never happen, but that's the place [the Chinese] would [dock] if they could, because that's the place all the autodockings are made, and all the docking collars are proper. Anything the Americans are coming up with themselves, well, they'll be the only ones who use it nasa and it's commercial carriers that's all. Everyone else goes Russian. (well jaxa doesn't do dockings as yet).Penyulap 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Everyone else" is only ESA. JAXA has no intentions of docking to the station, if they did than the ISS partners would loose the large hatch diameter that berthing allows. The United States is responsible for transporting JAXA and ESA astronauts to the station since their modules are a portion of the USOS side, currently the United States is paying Russia for their transportation to the ISS. After Commercial Crew comes online, Soyuz will only be transporting Russian astronauts.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(oops I replied to your quote of yourself) And privateers ! :) (wrong term, but more dramatic, let's take the station lads!) JAXA is so interesting, because where are they going next ? it's the same as the US without all the talking. It seems unfortunate there is no announced successor (correct me if I am wrong) to the Kibo success. Do you think it's because of their alliances ?

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202/09jaxa/--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone else at this moment in the time continuum is only ESA, because there is no autodock capability on the USOS and no plans whatsoever to make it (correct me if I'm wrong). The only real addition to the autodock family could be China, and the rest of the autodock family is exclusively RS, so why would china not join them ? Penyulap_talk

(inserted text) No I'm not, I'm saying the ROS is where the party is at, didn't you see that video I added to the external links, where they make Yuri look like he is dancing at a club somewhere even though he is made of cement, and are all butt slapping and so on ? The Americans can't stand the Chinese, they refuse, by law, to buy them a cheeseburger if they come and visit a NASA site, it's ILLEGAL to buy them a cheeseburger. (I wonder if fried rice is ok?, they might like that, or some Peking duck, yummmm Peking duck) Russia and China are good friends, Phobos, Chinese space program and so on. Where else would they possibly dock ? on the external platform of kibo and then come through the experiment airlock ? :)

Mark my words, if they do dock to the ISS, it'll be to the Russian segment. (marking my own words [X]) Penyulap_talk

Then why mention autonomous docking?--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another kind of Chinese docking :) ? Penyulap_talk

Yes, see the mission plan for Shenzhou 9.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-HA, so there you are, first and foremost they do the automatic docking then when they have that worked out they run a manual docking to work out procedures and protocols and problems the crew will face. They learn their lessons well those Chinese, by watching. Having both is important for safety, practicing both is important for safety, and they do the auto dock with their Tiangong 1 first, no? I think after like 135 NASA Shuttle flights, with many to the ISS, there was a missed opportunity to develop auto docking technology, and what a shame too. But NASA boys are born and bred cowboys and love it that way, and it's more dramatic... I like their style. Actually I have a cool picture of the ISS seen through their manual dock system to compliment a Soyuz docking view as well, so we can make one of those little side-by-side pics in the article.

So the USOS is for cowboys and robotic arms, and the RS is for deep space prep with robot docking and trying to over-ride HAL 9000, before he crashes the progress into Mir. Sweet. So I still think the Chinese aren't cowboys, do autodocking, and would dock to the RS. Penyulap_talk

They probably chose to do the Shenzhou 8 unmanned because they didn't want to risk a crew on their first docking, I have no clue what they plan to do nominally for future missons. The Russians were actually the first to fly the APAS-89/95 system and they did it with a crew on-board opposed to the unmanned Shenzhou 8 mission. Since NASA didn't have unmanned re-supply vehicles why would the Shuttle need to be docked automatically? What article are you talking about? "So I still think the Chinese aren't cowboys, do autodocking, and would dock to the RS." To me it doesn't make sense for them to use a heavily modified Shenzhou for a one-off ASTP type mission.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future missions will do as the Russians do, autodock with supervision, call that another penyulap assumption, but I won't go putting things like that in any article until someone says it somewhere of course, I don't make stuff up at all, and I keep my penyulap assumptions out of articles. I'm saying they missed the opportunity to develop the system, but of course my voice matters nothing, it's a drop in the ocean of voices that say Nasa missed this opportunity or that opportunity, and that the human race squanders all their opportunities, sigh. But now they have finished with the shuttle and have no autodock developed sort of thing, although they let the commercial people do dragons eye didn't they, so i guess they let other people take the opportunity. Haha, every Shenzhou is heavily modified, it's like no two ever look alike. lolz. Penyulap_talk

After Shenzhou 9 they should all be pretty similar.Source1 Source 2--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assuming that the APAS family is much larger than it is

APAS is the root term for the entire family of Russian docking mechs, and the american and chinese and euro mechs which are all branches from that, afaik.
No. The APAS family consists of APAS-75, 89 and 95. Although typically the term APAS is used to describe APAS-89/95 (APAS-75 is a very different, non-compatible mechanism). Americans used the APAS-95, these mechanisms were purchased from Energiya and integrated into the Shuttle's Orbital Docking System and onto the PMAs by Boeing.

The Russians use the mostly unrelated Probe and Drogue system, the Europeans use the same mechanism to dock their ATV.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, per above. Penyulap_talk

You claiming there is a usable APAS mechanism on ROS, that Shenzhou isn't capable of being docked manually and that docking mechanisms can easily be converted to other types.

And what the americans are doing on their section is irrelevant. the APAS are Russian. not american. They are all over the station not just on the USOS.Penyulap
There is one on ROS. It connects Zarya to Unity, and thus cannot be used for visting vehicles (nor has it ever). The only open APAS docking mechanisms are on PMA-2 and PMA-3, which are part of USOS.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
No automated docking is possible at present on the USOS, so any supposed docking to that section will require new hardware to be sent up. Which means you can just as easily send up new hardware, such as slapping a new collar on the node module,Penyulap
You cannot "slap a collar on", a docking adapter would have to be developed. This means it is not compatible with ROS. Craigboy (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(ins) It can be manually docked, no problem, but I am saying that just like everyone except NASA and JAXA, the chinese use autodocking first and manual as a backup. The ROS is equipped for autodock. USOS isnt'. Penyulap_talk It doesn't matter that the USOS isn't equipped to allow autonomous docking if Shenzhou can be docked manually.--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how the Chinese do things. Penyulap_talk

That's not how you think they do.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do things my way. I told them to. :) They go for contingency, safety. They aren't going to abandon the best ways and risk a botched docking because manual won't work and they realized they left the rendezvous in Beijing, they are going to take every precaution possible. The ESA boys are on the same page too, they came to the RS party and brought a plate with GPS, lazer, and everyone's favorite, Kurs for backup. They didn't leave anything behind thinking it'll be ok, they left nothing to chance and look at them now ! cool. that ATV kicks the ISS butt into high orbit like no other ship can do. Penyulap_talk

"just like everyone except NASA and JAXA, the chinese use autodocking first and manual as a backup." Everyone else is just Russia. And I think you're right that it may just be a cultural thing.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSME, ESA and RSA use autodock, JAXA and NASA don't. It's easy enough to see, that when the ATV evolves into a manned vehicle, it'll autodock as well. Penyulap_talk

"autodocking first and manual as a backup" The ATV can't be controlled remotely. If the ATV gets converted into a manned vehicle I thnk there's no way of knowing how they will nominally dock a manned vehicle.--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assuming again that Shenzhou isn't capable of being docked manually.

OMG you're a total GENIUS, that whole "the rendezvous and docking project hardware is compatible with the International Space Station." - Jiang Guohua, a professor and chief engineer at the China Astronaut Research and Training Center in Beijing. is brilliant. Stick it in the article man ! I can't steal your thunder there, you've had that since march ? good thing you remember/mention it ! That is brilliant ! Especially since it's the first specific mention of the rendezvous system. Which suggests more than it reveals as to where the docking would occur, yes, because as far as I know, there is no (automatic) rendezvous system whatsoever on the USOS, it's strictly Russian.Penyulap 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(ins) no I'm not, I am saying they don't fly by the seat of their pants, they take the russian "Ve have barkups fvor our barkups for our Oxillary redunentsee systems comorade" they demand high standards of safety. Penyulap_talk

Manned dockings are not unsafe.--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(You mean manual, yes?) They are not unsafe, unless the crew get sick, or the manual controls are broken, or the crew member isn't well trained, or alert, or any of a hundred other things. Extra options create safety. The Chinese see that, and go for extra options. Besides, it's an obvious technology to develop and exploit. Automated dockings are a big advantage in many situations, so why would they prefer to go manual, there is nothing to learn from it that can be applied beyond that crew-member's missions. Anyhow, I think that's interesting, maybe the different approaches to safety that the different agencies have are a reflection of culture. The Russians seem to change everything that they can think of in response to any accident, and the Chinese seem to learn by watching what others do. I still haven't popped into the ISS article how the Russians have a policy to team up every spaceflight newbie with a spaceflight veteran. It's that way for every ISS flight, but did you know about that ? I think it may be difficult for you to grasp the Chinese / Russian approaches to safety, and it is certainly a little difficult for me to grasp the American approach to safety. So it's good that together we paint the whole picture. By the way, we need to work on getting your 'clone' word in the article somewhere, not where it annoyed the other editor in the china section, but it should be written up, the different opinions, how some say China purchased it, some say they stole it. Penyulap_talk

No sources said they stole it, if we mention the tech exchange sources than I believe the word clone won't infer it was stolen.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Craigboy 1, consensus 1. use the word clone, but only if you mention the tech exchanges. Penyulap_talk

Agreed.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeet ! I'll help you sneak past the other editor that doesn't want it in the China section, we can put it into the docking section, as a better overview of the docking and berthing mech article, and/or a note in the china section. This would be cool, explaining it to everyone. Penyulap_talk

Maybe we should just keep it in the Chinese Docking Mechanism article?--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that the Soyuz and Shenzhou are compatible.

The Chinese and Russian hardware is compatible for docking, making co-operation much easier (US hardware is not compatible, and auto-docking is unknown in US manned craft). Penyulap (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(ins) I think they just have to do a) the rendevouz and b) pinouts. Penyulap_talk Expand on "pinouts".--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, when any two spacecraft join together they 'talk' to each other at the very least, like the main computer on the ISS wakes up the Soyuz computers now and then and asks them how are they, how do you feel, are all your systems all right ? and chit-chats about where they are at the moment (lolz, maybe that language is too approachable for you), "The DMSR in the SM periodically interrogates the computers of the docked Soyuz vehicles for system status and uploads new GNC data for use in evacuation scenarios". Anyhow, back on topic, no two craft are quite the same, so the Buran 'pinouts' would have different connections in that APAS allowing the MIR-2 DMS to talk with the Buran DMS. Maybe they are RS-232 or maybe USB ? Like that. Or, to put it another way, just as the computers on board are updated, so too the connections do, and as the missions change so do does the adapter version, for example you said they do not transfer gas/fluid, but obviously if they wanted to add that to a future mission they can use the same APAS and just add the connectors to both sides, and delete the ones that are superseded. So the pinouts and pipes and so forth will change according to the craft and mission. the Soyuz Apollo computers wouldn't have had any connections for the computers would they ? probably not. But the latest ones would. OMG, I just thought of the perfect analogue. Think domestic motor vehicle towing mechanisms. They have the same 50mm spherical steel ball, but different electrical connectors, sometimes in some countries they are flat, sometimes round, but of course, this is all not such a OMG moment if towing is not big where you live. There are countries full of cars where none have towing mechanisms I do recall. Penyulap_talk

The electrical connections are all the same, there would be be no reason to have mission specific electrical connections. APAS-89/95 were only used on space stations, there would be no reason to launch a spacecraft that was no compatible with the one on orbit.--Craigboy (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way. '75 '89 and '95 will not have the same electrical connections. cn.! Penyulap_talk

I was referring to APS-89/95. APAS-75 is not compatible in any way to APAS-89/95.--Craigboy (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that's what I'm saying as well. Penyulap_talk

So you understand that there weren't mission specific electrical connections for APAS-89/95?--Craigboy (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I few other strange things you've done

Adding a Christmas section to the ISS page

New section "Christmas on the International Space Station"
I've created a new section for the article, that appears at Christmas when such material is notable, and not at other times of the year, when people probably won't care. The section without it's heading is at Template:Christmas on the International Space Station and please do add, edit and so forth. Ignore the warnings you will see about references, when it goes into the article they show up normally if they are done in the usual way. Anyhow, it all works although I will no doubt improve it's technical implementation, and might get help from others too. Or just go ahead and delete the lot if you feel the urge to ! whatever. Temporarily there is a way to view it on my talkpage ISS workspace, but I'll copy it out of there soon if it looks like a good idea, to aid in editing. Penyulap 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

woops, it's gone live sooner than I thought, thanks to technical help, and another take on which days are good, I'd better spruce it up, it was just example stuff really. Any comments on this section? Penyulap 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's great isn't it. If you don't like it, go delete it, I won't stop you. Still, it stayed there with just one concern all Christmas, and I got assistance from other editors with it. So seriously, is it a bad idea, or just an unusual good idea ?

(added) Look at it like this, there was one valid concern, that something that is in the article should be notable all the time, rather than just at a particular period of time. True enough. But there are the exceptions in the article. For example, we don't list all of the craft that have visited the ISS in the article, we only mention them in the lead-up to their most interesting time, and then dump them fast as soon as they leave. So too with the Christmas section, it appears only in the leadup few days, and then disappears fast afterward. Penyulap_talk

Going on a tangent about hats

Sorry, I apologize, I missed the word 'hard' on the first read. Didn't mean to twist your words. Anyhow, they're not hard hats that they are actually wearing in that picture. (I mean I can't get over your totally disputing the photographic evidence, I mean, this is not one of my own pictures I made, I'm not THAT good with GIMP, it's from NASA I think, just look it up) anyhow they are not hard hats, they are yellow hats. They can't have got onto the station without being 100% Mission control approved I'm sure. If I can get a ref saying they aren't hard hats, they are just yellow hats, can I have your support for the picture, and should I get a ref saying they wear hats on the ISS, you know, aside from this photo ? Also, I'm pretty darn sure the 'reason' has to be something to do with 'policy' or, to make it easy, any essay more than 3 days old will do too, probably. Wait, is it the caption ? I don't think I said anything about 'hard' hats, I do think I mentioned the commanders mustache though. How about I review the description so it doesn't mention hard in relation to hats. Penyulap 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen, I didn't say it was photoshopped. Re-read my original comment ("Crew members do not wear hard hats on the ISS (except for when they were posing for this picture)"). I don't know what you mean by "yellow hats" (and don't tell me they're hats that are yellow). They're clearly hard hats, and they're most likely wearing them to make it a humorous photo.Craigboy (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article right now and I'm seeing 5 hats across 2 photos. (Because the Christmas template is showing). There are plenty more hats here and if it is included that's going to make 10 hats in the article, I'm thinking some different colors would be nice, I mean they are all red hats, with white trim and a bit of green, I'd love a picture with some yellow hats to balance the article a bit. Penyulap 12:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Pen you're hard enough to follow as it is so can you please keep the jokes to a minimum.Craigboy (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Well how about start making sense ? I mean what's "Image is inaccurate" or "Crew members do not wear hard hats on the ISS" all about ? oh come on, I am asking serious questions here, and what am I getting in return ? Penyulap 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
You're getting very obvious answers and responding with things like "It's clearly 3 times better than the replacement, as there is 3 times the work being done" and talking about the balance of different kind of hat pictures in the article.Craigboy (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted text) Ahh my hats my hats, my precious hats. I'm trying to convey the humor they have on the ISS, there is a lot of it. Russians are quite nuts for it. I mean how about this for an official government Mars500 website picture ? There is humor on all sides, but mostly on the American and Russian sides I can find it. We need more JAXA and Canadian humor ! Penyulap_talk 10:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm trying to convey the humor they have on the ISS" - Well why didn't you say that instead of going on and on about hats?--Craigboy (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omg, lol, I thought I did, per the original caption, "the crew are well prepared for all the things that fall on them in Zero gravity" hehe, I'm so sorry there, I thought that was pretty much the thing, it's like I thought for a while there why don't Americans have any humor ? but I see you do. Btw they were sent on the shuttle too. Do you think we should pop a little bit in somewhere, or do you think it's no good ? Penyulap_talk

Cool stuff we have done.

I think there are some really cool things too, some things that seemed 'strange' at the time, but now are like the norm. Do you remember when people used to argue with me about the lede ? and how frustrated I got when they refused under all circumstances to discuss content, preferring to just revert everything ? Actually I think you would remember because you got hit by the shrapnel too, remember ?

From the time when I did my first edit till now, wow, what a difference we have made eh ?

Remember when people used to argue with me over how many space station projects there were ? now look at the Origins section, you can just read it. And even though I wrote it, I don't agree with Columbus being a space station, I wrote it the way I figured people would like it, whereas for the record, Columbus was nothing but an on-paper diplomatic bargaining tool, not a space station project. But it's too 'out there' to explain the difference to people, so I just keep the concepts nice and approachable. The other self criticism of that section is I haven't bothered to include Canada, but who cares ? maybe later on I'll add a good read.

The table of contents is nicer now, logical, and I love the feel of the article, more dramatic. I think we've done a fantastic job, but it's only just begun, there is so very much to do, the article is still a pile of crap. I have the special penyulap ability to just turn up the critique and see all the problems. Pick a section and I'll tell you lots and lots of things that are wrong with it. On the other hand, I can just turn it down too, and the article is lovely, or I can move across time and tell you why it will suck and where and how soon. And stability, I can pick and see where the hits will be, and why they occur, and head them off too. Omg, remember 'assembled' ? It's a dirty dirty word eh ? lolz. Penyulap_talk 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited MARS-500, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D

For your kindness. I'm pretty surprised to be honest. I actually saw a counselor earlier today. So thank you for your help. I was hostile at first and I apologized. I think I have a lot to offer. I know I didn't make the right decisions, but I think now I will do much better. I kinda like poetry. I'm more into full stories though :D. SKeptical of Love (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You are most welcome. I see a great deal of promise in you, both in your editing and in your poetry. I can't imagine that you wouldn't be able to impress someone that you like with poetic skills like those. I couldn't find any of it on google, so I suspect that you in fact wrote it yourself, is that correct ?

I'm glad that things are working out. You can turn your 'full stories' into 'essays' here on wikipedia, they are very popular (too popular really, sometimes people try to use them instead of rules (facepalm)). Penyulap_talk 06:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote along response at AN/I. I am taking responsibilty for all of my pasta ctions dating back to 2006. I sense you may not be entirely genuine, but your help is greatly appreciated. I see a great promise in myself for making things better. I will not ever leave Wikipedia because I love this site. I will make articles better because I want to atone for my past and make Wikipedia better. SKeptical of Love (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]