Talk:Space station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Space station is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Space station at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Inclusion of Tiangong 1[edit]

Tiangong 1 does not really belong on this list as it is not a true space station. It is a testbed and not capable of hosting a crew on it's own (it requires the use of the docked spacecraft to make it liveable). The Chinese don't even refer to it as a space station. It's a one off temporary platform for practice for the real thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion without headers[edit]

Does anyone know what the last time was when there was no human in space?

The last day with no-one in space was before Expedition One was launched to the ISS, which means October 30, 2000; just over five years ago. Shimgray | talk | 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Its says in the article that the ISS has been continously manned since im assuming it is incorrect...CORRECTED | 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Future of Space Stations[edit]

The article doesn't mention predictions about what space stations will be like in the near future. Is anyone planning on building sphericle space stations any time soon, or will all space stations be modular for the foreseeable future? As people in space represent now and the future, aren't things like that important?

i agree the chinese space program has a plan to put up a small space station in the year 2010 (next year) and it will be much like salyut in terms of mass. but they will add to the station and try make it have as big of mass as skylab by 2011. this article should mention the chinese space station that is going to be built. (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Time coincidence?[edit]

Is it an error or a coincidence that the time of launch for both Mir and ISS is 21:28:23 UTC? — Michael J 15:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong, but I don't know what the correct time is. Circa 4AM UTC, per [1], but haven't been able to find a launch time yet. Shimgray | talk | 16:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Death Star[edit]

Is is accurate to call Star War's Death Star a space station? It is a self-propelled vehicle (and was certainly not stationary, in any sense). Wouldn't a more accurate description would be a warship, regardless of the movie's nomenclature?

I agree with this point of view, I just removed the example. // Duccio (write me) 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Visitors[edit]

31 astronauts has been counted twice and Sergei Krikalev has been on the ISS three times.
July 10th 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 Belgian, 1 Dutchman, 1 Spaniard, 2 Japanese, 3 Canadians (1 woman), 1 Brazilian, 1 Kazakhstani and 1 South African.

I will change the number. --Necessary Evil 11:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unmanned visits to ISS: we probably need to update this because of the recent ATV mission, which can certainly be classifeid as an 'unmanned visit'. However, there have surely been move (shuttle) missions since "October 27, 2006" as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Escape Pod/Module[edit]

where can I find more information on the escape pod for the space station? --Andrew Rickert

For the International Space Station, the resident crew would use the docked Soyuz-TMA spacecraft to escape from the station in an emergency. I believe the Russians have planned it this way for all their orbital stations. It would be interesting to add to the article a section on the various U.S. space station "lifeboat" plans. (sdsds - talk) 08:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(Six months later....) That would be the Crew Return Vehicle, of course. (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Beta cutout information[edit]

Does anyone have a source for information about "beta cutout" constraints for launches of missions that visit space stations? Is this constraint due to the orbital inclination of the station and the latitude of the launch site? How does time of year play into that? (sdsds - talk) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion?[edit]

"The U.S. Space Station Freedom program, which - despite being under development for ten years - was never launched, evolved into the International Space Station"

Seems to be incorrect to me. The Space station Freedom was in fact cancelled. It did not evolve into anything and the only results of the programme were a number of small pieces of machinery that entered initial tests. It was the Mir-2 programme that in fact evolved into the ISS ... with a number of its components becoming the first pieces of the ISS. Should someone clean this up / fix it?--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


The distinction "Man-tended" and "manned spacestation spacestation should be given. In a man-tended spacestation, robots instead of humans perform the everyday tasks and a human simply visits occasionly to oversee the station. This means that almost everything is manually done by humans. In regular manned spacestation, its the other way around


I'm not sure about some of these mass values - they seem to be remarkably similar between different models of station, and it'd be great if someone could find a decent source to confirm one way or the other. Colds7ream (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed some of these values, and added references. It still isn't clear to me sometimes when the value is launch mass, or not; and if it's launch mass, one is left wondering what the in-orbit mass was. Mlm42 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mass of ISS is now out dated[edit]

the ISS is now much larger than the mass thats given this is verifiable if you look at its mass on the ISS article casue they do not match. there fare its my conclussion that ISS has grown larger after this previus figure was put on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC) hey people —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

List of space stations (chart)[edit]

Right now some of the statistics seem kind of meaningless. May be we should change "Total crew and visitors" to "Crew size", "Mass" to "Volume", and add a "Continuously Occupied" section.

EDIT: Changed my sentence

--Craigboy (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)--Craigboy (talk) 03:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing some work on a separate list of space stations to supersede this, feel free to help out at User:SalopianJames/List of space stations. Colds7ream (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is our definition Original Research?[edit]

Can someone please cite a reference which provides a description of space stations that matches the description we use, i.e. occupied or intermittently tended and with docking facilities? It should be easy to find a WP:RS for this; else it risks violating WP:OR. (sdsds - talk) 03:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Strange Forgotten Space Station Concepts That Never Flew[edit]

Strange Forgotten Space Station Concepts That Never Flew, sourced in a media outlet that is generally considered a reliable source: Wired Magazine, 24 Jan 2012. N2e (talk)

Unsure about this sentence[edit]

As of 3:36 PM EST on 2013-12-19, the last two sentences of the first paragraph of this article seemed to read "Previous stations include the Almaz and Salyut series, Skylab and most recently Mir.The Japanese often eat sushi and have inter course while on on board. YOur Welcome!" but I was unable to locate from whence the last sentence originated (I believe it is extratopical if not patently false, that much should be apparent). As I have no idea what to do, I'm posting this here. I couldn't find the sentence in the page's text displayed under the "edit" tab, but I may have looked in the wrong place. If someone with more experience could solve this, I believe the last sentence deserves removal. UzzahAndZarathustra (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Do the Genesis orbiters belong here, even as "prototype" stations?[edit]

I would say "no", but I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Genesis 1 was a simple balloon in orbit, with no life support systems. It was pressurized with nitrogen -- no oxygen -- and lacked a range of essentials from radiation detectors to attitude control. It was a proof of concept, and it could never have supported human life. Calling Genesis 1 a space station, even a "prototype", seems pretty dubious.

Genesis 2 was a somewhat more advanced balloon in orbit. It enclosed a breathable atmosphere and had an ant farm and some cockroaches inside. It had basic life support, so a human on board could have survived for a few days (with difficulty; air pressure was low and temperatures fluctuated) before dying of thirst. But it was never intended to support human life. You could make the "prototype" argument more strongly here, but I think it still fails.

Also, the bar graph extends their bars to the present. This seems dubious indeed. Bigelow Aerospace is notoriously close-mouthed, but AFAWCT Genesis 2 has not been habitable for years now -- its limited life support system failed long ago. Now it's just a slowly deflating balloon, alternately freezing and cooking, with some desiccated dead insects aboard.

It would seem more accurate to eliminate Genesis 1 from the graph, and then either eliminate Genesis 2 or have it fade out after a year or two.

Doug M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)