Talk:International Space Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article International Space Station is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2010.

ISS Missing Components on Diagram[edit]

For various reasons, some components are missing (or marked as missing) on the ISS diagram. Here is information about them:

---Radical Mallard (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Radical Mallard, I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the tree diagram contains both Pirs and Nauka. CALET is a minor component and shouldn't be added, just as none of the current external experiments are included. It would make the diagram far "busier" than it already is. Huntster (t @ c) 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait, were you referring to File:ISS configuration 2011-05 en.svg? Yes, it is missing Pirs, but it was intended to show a "final" configuration for the station, so it appropriately excludes that module. Again, I'm not seeing anything actually wrong here. Huntster (t @ c) 23:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure people had info about the parts that either aren't on the diagram at all, or are marked as not added yet, so people could focus what to do about them, and when. ---Radical Mallard (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International Space Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in caption?[edit]


The first image in the body of the article has the caption "Sunrise at Zvezda". However, the Zvezda module is located on the aft of the station. Thus, the picture was taken looking in the retrograde direction. What the image depicts should therefore be a sunset.

(also, the page given as the source of the image does not specifies whether it is a sunrise or sunset.)

Therefore, I think the image was simply mislabelled.

Could somebody edit that caption? I'd suggest either "Earth and Sun seen from Zvezda" (or even "sunset at Zvezda").

Thank you!

Pyrhan (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Days occupied / continuous human presence in space[edit]

NASA recently announced Scott Kelly is scheduled to land March 2, 2016 with a US record of 342 days in low earth orbit. The Russian record is 437.7 days. For continuous human presence in space this counts like a relay race, when one astronaut's 3 month stay ends another astronaut stays 3 months. This is not a fair measure of sustainability. NASA is funneling a large amount of money into the ISS which is impeding NASA's other objectives such as robotic exploration of the solar system and human mission to Mars. The ISS will never be able to support itself for a number of reasons. First, orbital decay will bring the station crashing to earth within 10 years if not for regular, expensive, dirty orbital boosts. As the station gets bigger the boosts get more expensive and more dirty. Second, there exists nothing in low earth orbit that can sustain the station. Other than solar electric power, all the life support systems, food, and water must be expensively sent into orbit. There is no way the ISS will ever be anything but a huge waste of money. I propose removing Days occupied and continuous human presence in space because these metrics are not representative of the impossible challenges that prevent the ISS from ever becoming a successful mission. Brian Everlasting (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not getting it, but it sounds like you want to get rid of these figures advocate getting rid of ISS? Whether you like it or not, these are important metrics in determining useful lifespans of our stations. We're still very early in the human spaceflight arena. We're not going to go from Apollo to self-sustaining space colonies without intermediate steps such as MIR and ISS. They aren't perfect, but they are how we learn and gain experience. Regardless, we'll see what others have to say about your proposal. Huntster (t @ c) 19:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)