Talk:International Space Station/Archive 14

Exciting news, Google streetview for the ISS
Well, like that, but it's a D.I.Y. project amongst the editors. It's the annoted image idea revisited, this time with an editor capable of showing us all how it's done. Z made this one here so this is brilliant. Best thing to happen to this article since James got to work. Yeah.!

So the idea is that we will use TheAnarcat's choice of picture he did before, and have clickable links through to whichever articles exist, plus labels for the furniture on the outside of the station, plus links to go from one image to the other image ( I think that works, can't see a problem) so you can work your way around the station identifying things like the horizon sensors, multilayer scintillation spectrometer, plasma-wave diagnostic thingy, radiometric sounder and which window is a window and which hatch is a hatch, this is the most exciting thing since the X-3 class solar flare and the millennium falcon and I don't know what else. This is so COOL! (oh yeah, I'm shoving in a space odyssey sort of feel as well soon. Penyulap   talk 07:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you the INGENIUS work of the master programmer, Z


 * If you click on the pirs module, it goes through to another one.

Russian Orbital Segment

Huh, Huh ? is this BRILLIANT or what ? Penyulap  talk 23:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the best thing that has ever happened, and when you click to goto the Zarya module picture, we'll have things on that picture you can click to move about as well. We will be able to select views out of a window of the ship, like look at London at night or see the aurora and watch a robot ship arrive. OMG this is fantastic. Penyulap   talk 23:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We will need help to identify all the bits and pieces of the station that can be seen in images. I dearly wish Lee was here, because I have no hope of identifying all the spare parts and Truss bits and pieces. Also, there are all the pictures of the insides of the station, lots of panels and experiments to label. This will be quite a fun challenge I expect !!!
 * I am thinking some of the images go into articles, but some don't really. Also it would be kind of hilarious if images that are click to zoom are used on non ISS articles, like geography and so forth, and people click them and make their way back to the ISS. HA! Penyulap   talk 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are more pictures, Template:Zvezda aft and template:pirs help with labeling is appreciated. Penyulap   talk 21:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

v0.21
Here is some of the latest work by Z. I'd love ideas on how to incorporate some of this kind of thing into article space on English wiki. Separate small articles ? One or two of the ISS images link to a tour ? Input and ideas welcome. sorry about the text, I helped with that more work is of course needed, as far as different resolutions and so forth,... lots of things.


 * Does anyone have input for the grey area between the inevitable image-mapped and linked images in each of the articles, and how we can accommodate the additional images ? Like for the EVA image example linked to above, would it simply go into the Expedition article ? or the module article, or a new article, some kind of sub to the module article ?
 * Come to think of it I guess we can image map, label and annote a lot of images so they can all link up. Penyulap   talk 05:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Cost estimate
Why does this article no longer contain an estimate of total program cost? It did not long ago. This is a very important piece of information. 174.60.75.146 (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * it did, but that estimate was always pretty much the overly round figure of $100 billion USD. Nice figure, but there is no telling where it came from really. There have been many ongoing costs and changes that should change any total. The mission life has been extended, so any estimate of the total cost has to be extended also. If it was a tally of costs so far, then it would need to be updated from time to time to stay current. As it was, it was either wrong or wrong either way. Nobody seemed interested in maintaining it, so eventually it got killed off. Any solution or references would be appreciated. As it is, with whats available, I could write a lovely section saying the ISS is basically free, because space agencies have said it cost 100, they have been saying it for years, and still say it after the mission was extended, so hence, it's free after 2015 or something. Penyulap   talk 04:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or what about a piece that points out that people have been saying for years that it's 100 billion dollars and that it is patently absurd. I like how you can use perfectly good references to illustrate why those references are perfectly wrong. Like here where lots of refs are wound together in a critique of bad reporting. Maybe that is easier, as there is nobody I know who wants to do the currency conversions for all 5 partners space agency spending over the years, I mean, which currency and in what period would you do the conversion, do you convert JAXA 1990's spending from Yen to USD at the 1990 rates when it was spent or tally it until today and then convert. Or just have 5 totals, if you can find them would be easier, but 5 totals aren't what people are after. I think people want a twitter sized answer to an overly complex question. How many notes will a symphony play in a concert that has only been composed halfway. Penyulap   talk 07:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, someone has popped a cost section in, which is cool, I've helped out in a rough manner by labeling it as US dollars, and moving it into politics, if you or anyone wants more help, I am happy to oblige. Penyulap   talk 11:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom animated piccy
Like it, hate it, how can it be improved ? too fast, too slow, something in the MOS ? I got the idea from reading about our featured pictures on Wikipedia, something someone said about animations showing the ISS in it's stages of construction. Freedom was an easier place to start. Rather than link to the animation, it links to the article, so the individual pictures may be examined in greater detail, which is not available from the anim.

Freedom with Kibō
Approved by then-president Ronald Reagan and announced in the 1984 State of the Union Address, "We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful economic and scientific gain", the proposed Freedom changed considerably.

NASA's first cost assessment in 1987 revealed the 'Dual Keel' Station would cost $14.5 billion. This caused a political uproar in Congress, and NASA and Reagan Administration officials reached a compromise in March 1987 which allowed the agency to proceed with a cheaper $12.2-billion Phase One Station that could be completed after 10 or 11 Shuttle assembly flights. This design initially omitted the $3.4-billion 'Dual Keel' structure and half of the power generators. The new Space Station configuration was named 'Freedom' by Reagan in June 1988. Originally, Freedom would have carried two 37.5 kW solar arrays. However, Congress quickly insisted on bla bla blah blah bla, bla bla blah blah bla, bla bla blah blah bla bla bla blah blah bla bla bla blah blah bla ZZzZzZZzzzzzzz ...zzzzzzzzz.....huh....what...... Penyulap  talk 08:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would prefer a series of static pictures so they can all be seen at once. And at the end of the day, this is an article about the ISS, not Freedom, so we only really need one. -- W.  D.   Graham  08:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts Exactly ! Penyulap   talk 09:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is ambiguous actually. I guess mine is too. Would you say that your looking at the problem in this way "I would prefer a series of static pictures so they can all be seen at once." + "article about the ISS...so we only really need one" = no series, or are you looking at it as "I would prefer a series of static pictures so they can all be seen at once." + "article about the ISS...so we only really need one" = a series of static pictures i.e. a suitable animation. ? Penyulap   talk 10:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it's too fast to look at the detail, which is something people might like to do. Any other ideas ? Penyulap   talk 06:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where's the party ?
In the article, the Russian space agency is having such a good time that old Yuri's concrete statue is up and dancing, and the European space agency having a party on their website, where abouts are the Japanese gettin down ? and the Canadians ? do the Canadians know how to par-tae ? I don't know, I found a nice vid I can use of one of the girls saying she has a tiger she has to keep tied up so it doesn't run loose around the station (it's a toy tiger) I think it shouldn't be too long till there is a fun on the ISS sub article I suppose. Any assistance finding material would be welcome. I'm pretty sure NASA doesn't know how to party though (wink Craigboy). Penyulap  ☏  16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

not the brightest
"the ISS is the brightest man made object in the sky, with an approximate maximum brightness of −4"

That's not completly true.

iridium flares can have a maximum brightness of -7, though that flares last for just a few seconds.

http://www.calsky.com/cs.cgi/Satellites/8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.27.242 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

✅ I've updated the page. Also, the article is not locked, so please feel free to simply edit it yourself. Penyulap  ☏  15:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

New bot has a task ready for this article
(inserted text) the bot is approved and the ISSIB template.

A bot that is in development is able to update a template holding data that would be of use to the article.

The article infobox has the following information displayed


 * Perigee 	376 km (234 mi) AMSL (1 October 2011)
 * Apogee 	398 km (247 mi) AMSL (1 October 2011)

This information is transcluded from the 'bots template


 * Perigee 	 undefined km AMSL
 * Apogee 	 undefined km AMSL

it updates automatically (daily, weekly, whatever, to keep up with reboosts) and doesn't show in the article history. This is the normal wikicode:


 * Perigee 	 undefined km AMSL
 * Apogee 	 undefined km AMSL

The altitude of the ISS varies a bit from a few kms, to 10 to 15 kms, with boost burns every two weeks on average as you can see here. Anyhow this would be one of the useless bits of busywork that a bot could do. Unless someone wants to do this kind of updating, or supports using dated info or just removing the info ? There are some other bits and pieces that the bot could do later on, I'll mention as development comes along. Penyulap  talk 06:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well here is PALZ doing his thing updating all that orbital trajectory data rockety sciencey kind of numbers stuff, and well Tiangong 1's apogee dropped by a kilometer, and so the stations speed increased as it's inversely proportional to height, as shown by the increased orbits per day. Hmm fascinating stuff, but it's probably no good for the article, although, thing is, it's in there already. So someone wants it there. If it were meant to be a static number, it should be a range, but a discrete number indicates updating. Anyhow, it's a tiny thing not worth the bother. Penyulap  ☏  12:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Calculating the orbital period
ISS revolutions per day from the bot updated template with info taken from the Heavens-above ref page

divide 24 hours by ISS revolutions equals hours

Times 60 minutes per hour equals minutes

using the first two digits of that string to get minutes multiply the remainder of the string by 60 to get seconds

Gives an orbit time of minutes and  seconds for  according to the Heavens-above reference page. (is that UTC ? I have no idea, but guess it is) Penyulap  ☏  00:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * should it go in a note, to say it's converted from revolutions per day ? Penyulap  ☏  00:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done Perigee and period, no time at the moment to do the other or combine the refs. Penyulap  ☏  00:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Too bad it's not realtime updated on the page. Otherwise it's just seems a statistical filler. Can this be of any actual use for the home astronomer? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The real time updating can be improved greatly, I just took the lazy way of relying on PALZ. What should be done, for example for number of orbits is to calculate using the and  as well as the epoch and an estimate of the orbital period (does not need to be accurate as the 'wiks lag will obscure the accuracy) then put them into a formula which adds 1 to the number of orbits every 92 minutes that passes. It is also possible to put the position of the ISS onto a map, so people can see where it is, there are plenty of ways to do that, but I don't think there is much demand for it, as there are plenty of trackers, it would only be something that would be slipped into the article if there was for example a ground-track picture of the earth with the sinusoidal path of the ISS plotted on it, then you'd just say in the caption ground track for (today's date), something like that.

PALZ is ( now), and his last edit to the template was about. That's just some whimsical code to say his status, but if you look at the last update to the template, there is some server lag or something which I don't have much interest in that causes some lag. I expect that the ISS article might update and 'rebuild' faster than the template, which is kind of out of the way. I suspect there would be a different result if PALZ were writing directly into the article, but that would stuff the history summary full, and nobody has said they want it either.


 * There is a lot more statistical filler that could go in, and probably is of interest only to a small minority of users, so I can't be bothered. What is there at the moment seems somewhat popular, but the infobox really needs improvement in presentation, if it was an article, it'd be a mess for organization, if it was a TOC, it'd be messy too. It's hard to read and hasn't got much order to it, the statistics are just scattered everywhere in random fashion.


 * If it is of use is something I have no idea about, as I have enough trouble keeping a telescope lined up with the moon, let alone a target that moves as fast as the ISS. The man that springs to mind here is Ralf Vandebergh he's a famous home astronomer and everyone loves his pictures, everyone except wikipedia, check his talkpage you'll see a classic illustration of wiki crap culture. I'd suggest asking at the project astronomy page, but they are a bit behind on things too, I asked if photographing an artificial object is technically astrophotography, but there was nothing definite, so I just go with the common language description used widely in the media instead of the technical term. I'm stuck for an answer on usefulness, so your guess is probably better than mine. What do you think ? Penyulap  ☏  00:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gallery/excellent pictures?
I once came upon a really incredible photo of the ISS here in Wikipedia. Virtually none of the photos in this article are what I would call "stunning", although I know such images exist, and are PD (NASA at least). Surely at the bottom there should be a gallery of beautiful pictures of this wonderful accomplishment? Huw Powell (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * sounds cool, might be an idea to rip out some of the weaker ones as well, if you can say which ones are a bit on the boring side I can help extract them, as some are in doubles. Penyulap  ☏

using the ISS as a spaceship
Do anyone know if there are any plans of using the ISS as a spaceship? If we have so much pressurized space out there, very good and proven life support systems, why not fly by the ISS to Mars for instance? --194.29.160.252 (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The ISS lacks sufficient shielding to protect the crew. It relies on the Earths magnetic field to shield it against Gamma radiation from the Sun, which would otherwise kill the crew on the journey to Mars. The engines on the station would require upgrading to make the passage to Mars fast enough, but the station weighs a lot, and with additional shielding it would increase by a factor of three or four because of it's shape and volume, making the engines and propellant storage required enormous. It is more economical to make a smaller purpose built craft that has a smaller shielded area and less weight. The Russians and possibly Chinese and Europeans will send unmanned modules to Mars, with the crew going separately. Russian and Chinese space stations assemble themselves, and can do so in Mars orbit as easily as they can in Earth orbit. Russian and Chinese manned craft are as small as is required to transport the human crew, they don't mix crew and cargo. When they look at the ISS, they see it as unsuitable for travel. Penyulap  ☏  21:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Building on the ISS construction experience, the future of manned spaceflight is where the proposed ideas of an Exploration Gateway Platform and Nautilus-X concepts represent the next NASA vision with the support of the Space Launch System and international inclusion in such missions. For the foreseeable future modular seems to be the consensus. Should any of it come to budgetary fruition is another question. This is my opinion and I do not wish to engage in ANY conversation about it. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wp
Proposed for WP:ISSMir Almaat Ali Almaat  ☏  From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 06:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you withdrew that nomination after it became clear that such a project would struggle to remain active. -- W.  D.   Graham  08:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Aw!Aw!Aw!. I don't need any users who discussed to do that again.Mir Almaat Ali Almaat  ☏  From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 16:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Templates on this page and edit notice for this article.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * The result of the discussion was that the templates and dialect were retained. Further attempts by to raise this issue may be considered disruptive editing and should result in the issue being reported to WP:ANI. Non-admin closure per unopposed motion to close below. -- W.   D.   Graham  15:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A straw poll to decide the issue was archived as a straw man. The section and objection was "Changing this article from American English to British English" that's American-> to-> British and it was turned around to a poll in the opposite direction change the article from British English to American English. That's British-> to-> American. The template failed to gain the consensus required to keep it. Penyulap  ☏  11:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you bringing this up again? You are the only editor objecting to the template and weather the version of English should be American or British. You are skewing the consensus. You are saying there was none to keep it, when it was removed and there was none to remove it in the first place. The templates and edit notices should be restored immediatly and left in place. Brining this s*** up again is only going to cause Wikipedia to lose great editors (I left once over it, I will leave again for good).-- Navy Blue84  13:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You and WD make me feel like a partner who has been cheated on, always assuring me that I'm the only one, but I'm no bimbo who'll eat up any line you feed me. There are only three possible options into the future 1) you boys can convince divorce court that there is nobody else except me. 2) Stop ignoring your long line of ex's, take down the wp:own templates, and let them all have their say. 3) Uninvolved assistance removes the wp:own templates.


 * Do you think there could possibly come a day when divorce court says 'hey guess what, there were no other editors upset about the template, it was only Penyulap all along over the entire two year period, in fact before he arrived, he was still the only one, and that straw poll thing, it was perfectly legit. I'd like to see arbcom put their name to something like that, as I wouldn't need any further convincing that wiki is a lost cause, and I'd get a life. But seriously, what do you think the odds of that happening are, 10 to 1, 2 to 1, 100 to 1 ? Hmm ?


 * What chance arbcom will say that poll was nice and proper, what do you think ? shall we go ask them now ?


 * I know you guys say there are no editors who objected to the insertion, what chance arbcomm will agree ? Penyulap  ☏


 * So, it's taken you two days since the last discussion closed to start a new one. Penyulap, the problem here is you, and the fact that you won't let this rest. I've told you this before, and you really should listen this time, Just Drop It. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record the article was started in British English, and subsequently partially changed to American without consensus. When the dialect was changed "from American English to British English", it was actually standardised since both were in use. This is something which I have told you on multiple occasions, but which you still conveniently omit whenever you try to wikilawyer this into your preferred format. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I'm very happy to drop the subject of which var to use, I've always been ridiculously flexible on that one anyway, anything from Jedi to Morse code to Jamaican. But the idea that I will ignore all the other editors on this talkpage, and simply pretend that they don't exist ? that WD, is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. I'm not a party to the British / American argument. But I will never stand by and allow consensus policy to be trampled all over.


 * Also, where you say 'two days since the last discussion closed', I think you might like to reconsider. Miszabot doesn't close discussions, it's not a party to them, it archives discussions. The difference is significant. Miszabot is a bot, not an arbitrator.


 * (response) Hmm, sounds like a nice interesting persuasive argument about eng:var. Now can you give me a nice interesting persuasive argument about the way you tied up the straw poll the opposite way around ? I'd REALLY like to hear your idea on that one. Penyulap  ☏


 * Penyulap, this is tendentious and disruptive behaviour on your part. You refuse to drop this issue, and have created a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere on this talk page as a result. Please just focus on editing for a change. --Ckatz chat spy  18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the harmony of the talkpage was disrupted two years ago, and hasn't been repaired since. I refuse to ignore the other editors on the talkpage, if that is a problem, too bad. It's time to focus on healing the rift between editors, I believe it is still possible. Penyulap  ☏  19:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to heal this "rift", you wouldn't be propping it open with your failure to accept the community's decision on this matter. As far as I'm concerned, it's closed. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, you say you don't care what version of English is used. Yet you take offence to a simple template message saying that the article is in British English, and that there are differences between British and other variants of English. I think you will not find many other editors, or admins for that fact, willing to side with you. Like WD said, listen to us for once, and just drop it. If you keep it up, you are going to come across and admin who will block you for being disruptive. Lets just drop this and not speak of it ever again!-- Navy Blue84  23:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Navy blue84, I have never cared about which variant. It is the disrespect of other editors, disrespect of consensus policy, stifling of the poll and tying it up back to front in favor of the minority that I object to. There is no chance I will ignore a template on this page that states the matter is 'settled', it is a clear insult to policy and other editors. To say that I will 'keep it up' and defend policy and other editors is precisely the course I will always take, other editors can be bullied into silence and bullied into leaving, I cannot. Penyulap  ☏  02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what about all those who were ignored when the initial change was made from British to American? Facts are facts, and the fact is the article was started in British, with no consensus for it to be changed. There probably never will be a consensus to change it, so the subject should be dropped. And since we are discussing and opposing templates, I object to the one you added about being available to help. This is being disruptive no matter how you spin it, and you can be blocked for it. I think you should take a little cool off break before you do get banned.-- Navy Blue84  02:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So is it fair to say that you are indeed ignoring other editors and are justifying this by the two wrongs make a right platform ? I can't believe you're saying that, so I'm asking is that correct ?
 * In regards for me being available to help, can you tell on what grounds you object to it ? Penyulap  ☏  02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, you're just trying to get somebody to trout you, right? Mlm42 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope I'm wanting to know am I the only one in this section at the moment who cares about the other editors who are upset over this matter. My last edit was poorly express I'm sorry if it was misunderstood. I am saying I can't believe I'm the only one who cares about policy.
 * The other thing I am asking is what objection is there to me assisting other editors. Penyulap  ☏  03:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion: wait until there are more people who think it's a good idea to bring this up again. Until that day comes, it appears to most people that you're simply being disruptive. Mlm42 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that MiszaBot had archived the request prior to anyone having a chance to respond, so I de-activated the request template in the archives and returned it to this section where it is easier for an editor to respond to my standing request for uninvolved assistance if they should wish to do so. If NavyBlue84 then asks me a question, I'm not going to ignore him. All else follows as responses to conversation. Are you advising me to ignore other editors ? Penyulap  ☏  03:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, you are not "the only one who cares about policy", on the contrary you seem to be at odds with it, arguing the letter of the law where it suits you, and ignoring facts that don't fit with your vision for the article. Now, there are three ways to look at this discussion:
 * The change was performed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and is therefore legitimate within both the letter and spirit of the law. Nothing is wrong, so no change is needed.
 * Despite any flaws in the way the change is made, the current format has been established for some time, and the article is for the most part stable. In accordance with the spirit of WP:ENGVAR and WP:CONSENSUS, if necessary applied through WP:IAR and WP:LAWYER, the general stability indicates that the article should be kept as it is, so there is no problem and no change is necessary.
 * The change was not sufficiently discussed and should be reverted. The previous change which introduced American English in the first place was not discussed at all, and hence by your own devices and in keeping with this letter-of-the-law interpretation, it must also be reverted. This leaves the article in the first dialect established within it, which happens to be the same one it is currently in, so in practice, there is no change.
 * As demonstrated, no matter how it is interpreted, there is no policy which supports changing the dialect to American, and this discussion is yet again shown to be a complete waste of everybody's time. -- W.  D.   Graham  11:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Pennyulap, you are the only one objecting to the Eng:Var template. No other editor specifically had an issue with the template, or issue with the dialect the article was written in. As for the template you inserted, it seems useless and redundant. If you want to find someone who can help, go to the history. There is a whole list of people who can help there. That template, even though it says its not a decree of ownership, does make it feel like you own the article. Like I said earlier, I think you need to take a little wiki break. To be honest, I am surprised Ckatz and WD haven't wet to admin notice board and asked for someone to step in. I haven't because I respect there opinion and experience. I think you should do that and drop it.-- Navy Blue84  13:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was on the verge of doing that this morning, but I decided to have one last try at discussing it. I also found out whilst considering it this morning that the issue was discussed at ANI last year after he was reported for nominating the article for FAR due to some of his proposed changes not being adopted. In that discussion Penyulap agreed to a one month voluntary topic ban in order to avoid further sanctions, with the closing administrator stating that the "subject [would be] best left quiet from all sides for a while". (See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive708) That ended the first of the three discussions he has started on this issue, he began the second one less than two months after his self-imposed ban expired (that discussion was effectively closed by archiving on Sunday, and he started this, the third one, less than three days later). -- W.  D.   Graham  18:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Miszabot, the official 'closer of discussions' is he ? There are three conditions for closure of this discussion, as outlined above. Penyulap  ☏  19:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WD, it was just under 50hrs! Penyulap, read this. Usually, a discussion is considered closed when there has been no activity for 7 days. There was no disucssion on the 2nd attempt at trying to have the template removed since 21 February. So we could actually say it has been closed for just over 2 months. Either way, this is attempt #3 in 9 months. You seen where the AN\I discussion was going, I am sure it will not go any better this time around.-- Navy Blue84  20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, this is your last chance to back down or we will request sanctions against you for your constant disruptive editing related to this issue. So far this specific discussion shows four users who support retaining the templates and dialect, versus you. Therefore your demand that it be changed to your preferred format or escalated to ARBCOM level defies not only the most basic Wikipedia policies, but also common sense. I would say 80% is actually a consensus to retain the templates, not just the majority of an absence of consensus. I suggest that this discussion is allowed to remain open for seven days from the original proposal. If, by then, no further editors have come forward to support your position, then it will be closed as having found a consensus to retain the templates and dialect. If you try to raise this issue again after that, I will take it straight to ANI. If you disagree with this proposal, please explain why you consider yourself to be above consensus. -- W.  D.   Graham  21:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Future Operations
This may be a bit premature. However there may be a place for reference to the ISS being utilized in the median future for the construction of the Exploration Gateway Platform and other future SLS related activities. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the pictures on the NASA page and reading their description, it provides no small measure of amusement. Craigboy will glare at me, I don't mind, it's worth it. They outline how they are spending 12 times as much annual budget as the Chinese do, and the Chinese have a fresh new space station program with all space stations from all new hardware, while NASA is sweeping up everything left over and gluing it together, this is heartbreaking, they laid off all the shuttle manufacturing workers. The American taxpayers pay 12 times as much at this restaurant just to be served leftovers, I am so totally in the Chinese restaurant next door on this one, PLUS to add insult to injury the page yet again advertises the NASA pay-twice-to-read L2 forum, the taxpayers paid for all the NASA stuff, and are again asked to pay more just to read what they paid for originally.


 * Then, NASA do as they always do, which is to come as close as they possibly can to telling outright lies. They won't ever call the core module of their new little leftovers 'Russian designed and built' on account of national pride. They can't avoid it, but do everything they can not to talk about it, and label it 'international module' which is NOT it's actual name. It has a name now, which they decline to use and very quickly move on to explaining the origins of every other module in the mash, but let's just not talk about that one. Sigh, tsk tsk tsk.


 * Some editors seem to react to including proposals into the article, as there are just so many, so generally speaking the more developed a proposal the more likely it is to remain in the article. But just pop it in there and see how it goes, I'd suggest putting it right up against the 'some parts of the iss become opsek' and the remainder is discarded sort of future plans area.


 * Now the most ironic thing about this is that the most relevant notable part of the whole proposal is the exact part they don't want to talk about. From the pictures it can only be one of two choices, Zarya or Zvezda, and they need Zvezda or the whole thing just won't fly (well Zarya can do the flying, but what I mean is, it won't work) because extra ironically NASA has nowhere near enough money to make a service module of their own, so the plan hinges around separating Zvezda and using that, or trying to fit out Zarya with life support. So now all that needs doing is getting NASA to admit what they mean by 'international module' lolz (run away before Craigboy smacks me). Clearly if NASA has plans alone to re-use the on-orbit hardware for something new, that is required in the article, but the only hardware in that proposal which is on orbit is Russian, except the solar arrays. The solar arrays are interesting because they will be quite worn by that time, they already grind their joints, but they have new ORU's up there and can assemble fresh-ish arrays to add to Zvezda, so it would work, you could search for that part.


 * It certainly belongs in the article on some level, and it would certainly last longer if they 'say it's name' :) or speak of it's actual origin (which is on-orbit hardware) Penyulap  ☏  14:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Penyulap, please do not mislead and lie to other editors.--Craigboy (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * NASASpaceFligt.com is a private company that has no relation to NASA. Tiangong 1 is cheaper then the ISS because it is so much smaller and has so many less capabilities. There's a reason why China wants to build a larger space station. Zvevda is not planned to be used for the Exploration Platform.--Craigboy (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to get too in-depth, but it was my understanding the EGP would not be cannibalizing the ISS but simply assembled there along with some of the proposed BEO platforms associated with the SLS. As for the EGP 'international module', I read that as a politically polite way to suggest the project is welcome to international participation rather than being a sole US platform without roping in any particular agencies that hasn't commented on the project. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That is precisely what they want people to think. No point telling lies if your not going to have success and mislead after all. The reality is they have no demonstrated capability to build a modular service module, or experience with long term life support atmospheric processing. The Russians have like 10 space stations worth of experience with life support and the US had 171 days of bottled gas in skylab. ESA and NASA both do research into atmospheric reprocessing on the ISS, but they are only now seeing just how hard electrolysis is in Zero-G, and the Elektron is no longer quite the target for criticism in the US media it once was, now that NASA can see the problems they have been having with their own system, which is recent by the way, it was bottled gas or the Russian system for 10 years in orbit on the ISS before they even began experimenting, and experimenting is where they are at today.


 * The pic for the EGP shows Zveda down to the portholes. The whole EGP is built from recycled parts, and NASA is not hiring, they have been firing, and turning the 'star cities' in Florida into ghost towns (can't remember what the names of the towns are though) when the space shuttle was retired, they sacked everyone. So there is no capability, no plan, ironically no budget, no experience to build a SM that can go the distance for the proposal outlined. Zvezda fits the description perfectly however, it's recycled, in budget, capable, it's the duck with the political gaffa tape around it's bill. It is a tragic situation that's for sure, I can understand why there is so much critique in the US about their own space program and it's a shame really. But if NASA can build a Service Module that looks like the one in the illustration prior to the end of mission, I'll eat my keyboard and post the pictures, so look for the story that NASA is not telling you. Same as the Solar arrays, the station always had 8 arrays and it was perfectly referenced to NASA because that is what NASA does best, after all, those billions have to go somewhere, and they certainly don't go into orbit as much anymore. Penyulap  ☏  23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, the US portion of the ISS does not use Zvevda's life-support system. The Exploration Gateway would not reuse ISS' solar arrays.--Craigboy (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for references on the USOS atmospheric reprocessing experiments, where they are up to, would you have any to share with me Craigboy. Penyulap  ☏  00:27, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * The PDF from Boeing calls it Zvezda 2 outright. So there is simply no doubt who is going to build it or whose design it is. So the only way it will fly is if they can buy new, or buy secondhand, according to the Boeing proposal on the NASA.gov website. (hey, because it is on the nasa site, Craigboy can justifiably give me a big fat boot, cause it's almost as good as nasa admitting it, even though it's Boeing saying it) Penyulap  ☏  01:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * NASASpaceFligt.com is a private company that has no relation to NASA. Boeing is a contractor. Contractors make proposals.--Craigboy (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Exploration Gateway Platform, a discussion by NASA and Boeing at the end of 2011, suggested using leftover USOS hardware and 'Zvezda 2' [sic] as a refueling depot and servicing station located at one of the Earth Moon Lagrange points, L1 or L2.


 * I popped it in like that for you, and updated the EGP article with " 'Zvezda 2' [sic] ", which is what the PDF says. I expect though, it won't last a long time, as it's just a discussion, rather than a developed proposal, and, as it relies on the ROS SM, I can't see it gaining support from the US public and so it shall die here just as it does there, I expect it'll last 1-4 years, depending how 'clean' this article is kept. Penyulap   ☏  08:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I humbly withdrawal my post that I also humbly began as 'This may be a bit premature.' Without stepping on any feet, or my mouth I am formally done with the ISS article for what it's worth. Good luck with that and all the rest of the un-congratulatory bullshit. Please do not reply. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've apologised to Doyna Yar (again) today as I noticed that I did not actually put into the article what I had said I had. I had windows open for the ISS, AGP and this talkpage at the same time copying things across, and it wasn't until today when I was reading the article that I noticed that there was no new text in it at all. I'm sorry for the slip-up and I apologise. Penyulap  ☏  04:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Miss Representation
"China's manned Shenzhou spacecraft uses a docking system based on the APAS-89/95 system, their system was developed after a 1994–95 deal for the transfer of Russian Soyuz spacecraft technology. Included in the agreement was training, provision of Soyuz capsules, life support systems, docking systems, and space suits. Chinese officials have made conflicting statements about whether or not their APAS-based system they use is actually compatible with the APAS system that is used on the ISS, which was used exclusively for Space Shuttle dockings"

These two parts are misrepresenting the situation, it's not 'based on' the APAS-89/95, compatible, yes, same as most of them, similar, for sure, based on is too strong entirely. Penyulap  ☏  08:38, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop giving insight on subjects you are not informed on. We don't know if the Chinese system if compatible, conflicting reports have been given. The Chinese system is clearly based off of the APAS-89/95 system.--Craigboy (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are mildly conflicting references, so rather than choosing which is right and which is wrong, it's easier to give a fair summary of all of them combined. Penyulap  ☏  10:56, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I did.--Craigboy (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

'used exclusively' is wrong, according to citable history and even the reference given, which states "The docking system, developed by Chinese, is compatible with the docking mechanism and structure used on the International Space Station, the Soyuz spaceship and space shuttles, "

you can't use that wording, it doesn't summarise the article referenced or anything else. I know what you mean, which is correct, it's the implication which is completely misleading. Knowing that you like to discuss things for a while, which is good, but that ends in silence rather than you fixing the problem yourself, I'll put it back now rather than wait a week / month later for you to, before doing it myself because you're silent. Penyulap  ☏  08:38, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, you removed more detailed descriptions in the past because you felt they were off topic. Without a more detailed description you're going to have to deal with those implications.--Craigboy (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I removed the more detailed descriptions in the past because I was not the only editor who felt they were off topic. Without further input on the subject, you're going to have to deal with those implications. Penyulap  ☏  10:52, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, what you put in the article was lies not implications. Reverting.--Craigboy (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * what you've put back, about the shuttle and so forth, is off topic for that section, according to myself and another editor, same as last time it was discussed. Penyulap  ☏  12:29, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * actually, it seems even without my opinion, there is still enough support for it the way it was.


 * Is it edit like a pirate day today or is there something I missed here ? Penyulap  ☏  12:49, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * It was much more in-depth last time.--Craigboy (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Miss Representation part.2
I'm going to attempt to resolve this.--Craigboy (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"American observers comment that Shenzhou spacecraft could dock at the ISS if it became politically feasible, whilst Chinese engineers say work is still required on the rendezvous system." Do you believe this statement is true or false?--Craigboy (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"China's manned Shenzhou spacecraft use an APAS docking system" Do you believe this statement is true or false?--Craigboy (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * While I am the number 1 fan of accuracy and truth, it seems to count for nothing on wikipedia, they love to go for verifiability instead. Problem here is the poor example set by WD and Ckatz as to what consensus is. Just because‎ MiszaBot archives something doesn't mean a thing. The discussion about the nasa shuttle and in depth apas just doesn't go into the china section according to at least two other editors besides me.
 * Penyluap, please answer the question.--Craigboy (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"American observers comment that Shenzhou spacecraft could dock at the ISS if it became politically feasible" is a fair summary of the sources, and true as well.

"whilst Chinese engineers say work is still required on the rendezvous system." is related to a particular point in the time continuum, and will change from true to false or back again according to the future. If it is properly written and qualified, it would be refed and true as well. Penyulap  ☏  14:12, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * So do you believe that the Chinese have never stated that Shenzhou is able to dock to the ISS?--Craigboy (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"China's manned Shenzhou spacecraft use an APAS docking system" depends on how you define apas, and I think you prefer defining it in a manner closely associated with particular hardware, whereas I lean towards apas as a descriptive title, but it seems a fair summary of the sources involved don't you think ? have they added a drogue or something ? they move so fast. Penyulap  ☏  14:12, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * APAS is not a term that refers to all androgynous systems. Do you agree or disagree?--Craigboy (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * well, I guess we are a bit fuzzy right there, as how do you refer to an androgynous peripheral attachment system that is not apas ? Penyulap  ☏  14:41, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * So you disagree?--Craigboy (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see more than one point of view on he issue, but what precise idea would you like to put in about apas, and what sources do we have to work with, because as it was, it was a bit controversial. If we called it just an androgynous system, it would be fair to the refs and make sense too, but it's not really approachable, but then apas is a bit complex either way. For the china section, it's just to point out the similarities, or the design influence and the overall objectives of the Chinese to make their system compatible, how you say it, so long as it is not controversial, is up to you. They didn't steal it, they didn't directly exactly copy it, but they intended for it to be 100% compatible. As far as I know it is, it just needs the rendezvous and a mission plan, neither of which will be forthcoming. The Chinese are happy to co-operate with everyone and smile sincerely, whilst he Americans pout and point fingers and try to spook them with the mini-me shuttle up there right now. Penyulap  ☏  15:18, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

"but they intended for it to be 100% compatible." Do you have a source for that?--Craigboy (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * is it controversial ? I mean you often call it a clone and debate what they have said they are doing in preparation, or what is required for docking. Is there some source that says it was never intended to be compatible ? we can shade it with that, but there is no need for the '100%' part, it's 'compatible' would be a fair summary wouldn't it ? Penyulap  ☏  15:46, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Run-on sentence fragment
What does this line mean? "An air leak from the USOS in 2004,[212] the venting of fumes from an Elektron oxygen generator in 2006,[213] and the failure of the computers in the ROS in 2007 during STS-117 which left the station without thruster, Elektron, Vozdukh and other environmental control system operations, the root cause of which was found to be condensation inside the electrical connectors leading to a short-circuit.[citation needed]" Rmhermen (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That started life as a section which also became an article which was titled major incidents on the international space station, which followed the reliance on US sources which the article had at the time. Each county likes to highlight it's own contributions and downplay the opposition, it is after all a political tool, not just a science lab. The US press could be somewhat alarmist when it came to 'that death trap I barely escaped from called MIR' and so on. The article has the calmer title of International Space Station maintenance today, and the sources of the material would be there. If you would like any extra sources please ask, and I have no opinion on its inclusion or exclusion, but I'm happy to help if I can. In a nutshell, the sentence fragment is what is left of a list of 'great disasters' on the ISS :) Penyulap  ☏  00:15, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * The question isn't the sourcing, it is that it isn't proper English. It isn't a sentence. Rmhermen (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:STS-134 International Space Station after undocking.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:STS-134 International Space Station after undocking.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 20, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-11-20. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 18:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of science output vs. cost
Why is there no discussion here (in the science section) about the amount of science the ISS generates per USD spent? Perhaps with a comparison of science output from other well known systems, such as satellites and other microgravity environments?

The "Scientific research" section praises the ISS for providing a long term platform in microgravity, exposure to space (vacuum, radiation), human operators for greater flexibility in experiments, etc. All this without mentioning any disadvantages, such as the _major_ topics of science output vs. cost, the risk to the human operators, etc. This is a frequently discussed topic and a well known source of criticism of the ISS. Lacking such basic elements, this article comes across as positively biased.

Lars Løvlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.156.31.108 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Content depends on Reliable sources and whether it adds meaningfully to the article. You clearly want to add criticism to the article, and we don't do so just because it suits you. If you can find some reliably sourced content, bring it here for discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

About Polius and Mir-2
"The first MIR-2 module was launched in 1986 by an Energia heavy-lift expendable launch system. The launcher worked properly, however the Polyus payload fired its engines to insert itself into orbit whilst in the wrong position due to a programming error, and re-entered the atmosphere" - what is the source of information that Polius was a part of Mir-2? As far as I know it never been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflected ray (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Secret Chistmas section broken
There is some funny problem with the secret section "Christmas on the International Space Station" that seems badly broken, with illegal red-flagged references, etc. I went searching for the place where it got put in, and find it on Dec 29, 2011, around 1400. It seems to appear in the history for every version in the article after that date. I could not quite believe that it could have been broken for almost a year, but when I came here and saw the notice about the "Secret Section" in the headings, I suppose it has just popped up lately. But it looks bad, and shouldn't it be suppressed in the histories? (Of course the secret code must be in there somewhere the whole time, but it should not appear in the articles out of season... ???) Anyhow, I have no experience with this issue, and think somebody who does should probably deal with it.

I see that Penyulap User talk:Penyulap is involved and may have inserted the Christmas code. I have tried looking at his/her user talk page, and find him blocked indefinitely. Too bad, as he had done so much good work on this article, which needs constant attention. Anyhow, I am going to leave this issue for now in the hope that someone else can deal with it. It does need fixing fairly quickly, as this is an important article. The interaction with the secret code with the viewing history puzzles me, I am over my depth here. Wwheaton (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at this, but based on my experience elsewhere, this sounds like a known issue with all page histories...templates always appear in their current form, not as they appeared at the time that revision was displayed - and this extends to parameters such as dates and times too. If you check the history once it is hidden from the article, you should discover that it is no longer visible in the history - not only for the months in which it was hidden, but also for the months in which it was displayed.
 * That said, I still maintain that the very presence of this section violates the concept that notability is not temporary - surely if something is encyclopaedic and worthy of inclusion at one time of year, then it is at any time of year, and we shouldn't change our editorial standards for a few weeks because "it's Christmas".
 * With regards Penyulap's block, that's a can of worms which anyone who frequents this talk page should know never to open... -- W.  D.   Graham  02:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Too bad, as he had done so much good work on this article" - Penyulap ruined the ISS article, this is just one more mess of his that has to be cleaned up.--Craigboy (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem has been fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason we need to leave this "secret section" code in? If we need to have the section at all (which I'm not convinced by) it's surely not outwith the wit of man to add it back in come December... Andrew Gray (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the secret section code, moved the content to a more appropriate section, and used a direct paste of the content. My concern with the secret section code was that it made it very difficult for people who didn't understand how including content from other pages works to edit and improve the material. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about inclusion - I just figure that if it is to be included, it seems best to include it like any other text. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Tour of ISS on video
The article already has many links listed under "External links", but maybe editors can find a use somewhere for this video. —Wavelength (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Swimming Through Space: An Amazing Tour of the Space Station - Washington&#039;s Blog
 * It's already there.--Craigboy (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, now I have found it. Thank you for your reply.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Heavens Above
The reference (following) to the web site Heavens Above appears innappropriate. The site is a pay-for app, and is essentialy a Trojan Horse religious site containing no live data or coordinate information, despite the implication that it does. Tools are provided by a number of websites such as Heavens-Above as well as smartphone applications that use the known orbital data and the observer's longitude and latitude to predict when the ISS will be visible (weather permitting), where the station will appear to rise to the observer, the altitude above the horizon it will reach and the duration of the pass before the station disappears to the observer either by setting below the horizon or entering into Earth's shadowBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.132.127 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about with regards it being "a Trojan Horse religious site". With regards the lack of data, as an example here are predictions of when the ISS will be visible from the Kennedy Space Center (I used LC-39B as an example location). For the record, the online service is free; I have the app as well and I got that for free too (unless they've started charging since I downloaded it). I can't see what the problem is. -- W.  D.   Graham  14:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See "Heavens-Above" (with a hyphenated title).—Wavelength (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that when clicking on the Heavens-Above link in Wikipedia, (on an iPad) you are taken to the App Store that includes an app called Heaves Above. This is a $0.99 site that is a religious site described trading as Digital Worship, LLC. The site has no live information, it contains some 75 photographs of galaxies, and references to their creator. The app is easily loaded down in mistake for the site Heavens-Above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.132.127 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Very strange - I'll look into this tonight. Are you using the normal browser on the iPad to view Wikipedia, or some kind of app? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

New images
I want to add a diagram of how racks are positioned inside the pressurised modules and a picture of interior assembly activity to the Station Structure section. Any thoughts? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ISS OS: Windows to Linux
Don't know if this is noteworthy: ISS switching from Windows to Linux. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10049444/International-Space-Station-to-boldly-go-with-Linux-over-Windows.html 01:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.33.54 (talk)


 * Done--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 17:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Programme/Program
The usages of "programme" and "project" in this article are a big troll. Any contribution from the USA is referred to as a project while everything else uses the UK English spelling of the word "programme", despite the fact that none of the countries involved(with the exception of the UK in the ESA) use this spelling, the wiki article it links to does not use this spelling, all the agencies involved that use English use the "program" spelling including THE ESA ITSELF. Clearly this is another example of rabid UK nationalism manifest in the form of petty insertions of uk spellings in random articles where they do not fit.

I will wait for someone to give me a good reason why the spelling is what it is before I fix it. Drn8 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed to death. I have absolutely no desire to add further fuel to a stupid row which has done nothing to improve the article and everything to generate unnecessary strife, conflict and disruption. I doubt that any of the other regulars on this talk page will be any more willing to discuss it than I am. It is how it is, that is the consensus that has evolved, and that is the correct interpretation of WP:ENGVAR. Given that we are now well into double figures in terms of times this has been discussed without change now, WP:SNOW would suggest we don't need to put it through this pointless process yet again. -- W.  D.   Graham  15:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Chemical notation spreads line breaks all over
Produces O 2 instead of O2. Perhaps it's better to use O2 ..?

The "offending" section can be found in "#Atmospheric control systems" at the line "stored oxygen. The Elektron unit is the primary oxygen supply, O..". Electron9 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tried reproducing the issue, but have been unable to. It works fine for me across Firefox, Chrome and IE. I've restored the template. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Still fails, just have a look at the raw html code for "O2" O

2  Notice the "   " Electron9 (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "" <---This? Seems to be working fine for me. —  Reatlas  (talk)  14:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It contains line breaks for me.. Did you inspect the html code for spurious br-line breaks? Electron9 (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's there, but that's part of its functioning, and is normally controlled with CSS. What browser and version are you using? And can anyone else please confirm or deny that everything looks okay from another perspective? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine here. Firefox 23.0.1 on Win7. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the Attitude/Altitude editnotice
I noticed a few users have recently been changing attitude to altitude. We used to have an editnotice to explain this common mistake until Penyulap forced through its removal. Since he is no longer disrupting this page, can we look to restore it? -- W.  D.   Graham  08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, please can an administrator restore the notice which was removed in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/International_Space_Station&diff=464196272&oldid=341081402 this] revision of the editnotice. -- W.  D.   Graham  10:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's such a big problem. I've just been back through the edit history as far as 25 August 2013, and could find only two cases of attitude being changed to altitude - these were on 5 and 6 October, and both were reverted within the hour. The number of miscellaneous vandalism edits - such as insertion of "This is so boring" - was somewhat higher. Maybe a semi-prot would be more useful? -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't think it's necessary, feel free to revert - I don't mind one way or the other. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn I'd seen it happen a few more times than that over the last few months - in any case I don't think having a notice will do any harm, and might help to avoid a few problem edits. The pattern in question isn't so much vandalism as inexperienced editors acting in good faith and autoconfirmed editors can be affected as well - I've even once seen an experienced editor get it wrong - so I don't think semi-protection is the answer for the attitude/altitude issue. -- W.   D.   Graham  07:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

External links reduction
So, our external links section is absurdly overpopulated. Below is my proposal, with rationales following:

==External links==

===Agency ISS websites===


 * 🇨🇦 Canada
 * [[File:Not the esa logo.png]] European Space Agency
 * 🇫🇷 France
 * 🇩🇪 German Aerospace Centre
 * 🇮🇹 Italy
 * 🇯🇵 Japan
 * 🇷🇺 Russia (Energia)
 * 🇷🇺 Russia (Federal)
 * 🇺🇸 USA

===Research===
 * Daily ISS Reports
 * NASA: Station Science
 * ESA: Columbus
 * RSC Energia: Science Research on ISS Russian Segment

===Live viewing=== See List of satellite pass predictors
 * Live ISS webcam by NASA at uStream.tv
 * Real-time position at Heavens-above.com
 * Real-time position at N2YO.com
 * Real-time position at WheretheISS.at

===Multimedia===
 * Interactive reference guide at NASA.gov
 * Image gallery search page at NASA.gov
 * Assembly sequence animation by USA Today and NASA
 * ISS tour with Sunita Williams by NASA at YouTube.com
 * ISS tour with André Kuipers by ESA at YouTube.com
 * The Future of Hope, Kibo module documentary by JAXA at YouTube.com

Obviously I've removed a lot, reordered section to a more logical flow, and fixed a number of broken or outdated links. So...
 * Removed wholesale are "Children's websites", "Contact the crew", "Travel agency website" and "Space agency YouTube channels". The first three are simple overlinking and in no way belong here. The agency YouTube links are inappropriate since there are any number of social media sites run by various agencies. How about a section for Twitter links...Facebook pages...Instagram or Flickr pages. You get the point. They are mostly available on the individual agency sites anyway.
 * In the "Research" section, I've removed the JAXA link, as it is the same as the Agency link.
 * Under "Live viewing", I've tidied up the remaining items, naming site and function, and removed half of them as completely redundant (the ones remaining, while also technically redundant, do offer enough differences to be worth it). I've also changed the NASA ISS video feed from the ASX direct stream to the one provided by uStream, as this is player-neutral.
 * I've combined the "Video" and "Image galleries" section into a single "Multimedia" section.
 * For Images: Thierry's site is nice, but not at all focused on ISS. The Polyus site is 1) entirely in Russian and 2) um...about Polyus more than anything ISS. And Lana Sator's site...um, I can't decipher what it's about (even with translate), but again it's in Russian and doesn't appear to involve much or anything about ISS. Commons site was removed as redundant...it's already in the ELs.
 * For Video: Most important (I think) is that all the time-lapse videos are removed as irrelevant (they're not about the ISS, and certainly not live!). I've removed UrtheCast (for now) since it isn't even functional yet. Removed RKA vid as being almost entirely Russian with no English subtitles (unlike the JAXA vid). Removed JAXA's Kounotori vid as being far more about the spacecraft than about ISS. Removed the Where's Ron vid as being pretty strange (actually, it was that, between this and Williams' vid, the Williams one was far better. The Garan vid was also fairly off topic).

So, hopefully my choices for cutting are understood. It's just an application of the KISS principle. I've not gone out and tried to find any new links (this was solely about paring down), such as new agency sites for those partners not already represented, so I'm very much open to suggestions. I want to find a consensus to move forward, as what we've got is just too much. I could have pared it down even more, but I think what's in the proposal is the best of what is currently in the article. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 06:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Owing to a lack of opposition, I've updated the article. One change: The agency links are titled after their articles. Doesn't make sense to have some saying countries and some saying names. —  Reatlas  (talk)  02:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

British English?
Why is this written in British English? Clearly there's no affinity for it, as the Americans paid for most of the station and launched half of it. The UK even banned having their ESA funding going to human spaceflight for most of the development and construction of the ISS. The only modules from English localities are from the US or Canada, so clearly either American or Canadian English should be used for this article per MOS:TIES, as the station began as Space Station Freedom, a purely American design, US English would have the greater claim to being the relevant dialect here. -- 65.92.182.36 (talk) 13:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the talk page archives before starting new discussions. This comes up every few months and has already been discussed to death. There is no consensus to change it, and I don't think that's about to change. -- W.  D.   Graham  13:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Microgravity and fluids
Under microgravity it states that fluids completely combine in microgravity. It should specify what is meant when saying fluids completely combine. Is it stating that an unusual solution occurs, emulsions, or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.90.132 (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above posting, I also found this wording rather hard to interpret.

194.176.105.153 (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Station Structure Diagram not showing properly on Google Chrome browser
Looks like a lot of work went into this table, but it ain't displaying properly. Render on Chrome image. I checked that Chrome is at 100% zoom. Fonts are at normal. DJ Barney (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Up/down" ambiguity
"Down" means both "further from the server" and "closer to the ground", so describing the "upward" and "downward" bandwidth of the ISS's internet connection suggests two opposite interpretations. If the Internet connection is used to send experimental raw data back to Earth, then it's plausible they'd need more bandwidth for outgoing than incoming traffic. Can we please get this cleared up? Neon Merlin  01:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nauka launch date
This article says Nauka will be added to the station in 2014. The article on Nauka itself indicates that the launch date has been pushed back to 2017 at the earliest. 70.192.1.34 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Sea plankton"
As I've previously remarked over at Talk:Plankton, this story is WP:RECENT. It's also not yet mentioned on NASA's ISS webpages - which is odd for such a seemingly striking story. As such, I'm going to remove it from the lead for now (which isn't the place for it anyway), but it can be added again once more is known about the story officially (i.e. from NASA). Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 08:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange statement
What does this sentence from the end of the second paragraph of the "Docking" section mean? "An automated approach could allow assembly of modules orbiting other worlds prior to crew arrival." I'm tempted to change it to say that an automated approach of modules already in orbit but I won't since I'm not sure that is accurate and/or not OR. 174.52.198.8 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

ref?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/science/space/international-space-station-ammonia-leak.html  Bananasoldier  (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)