Talk:International Space Station/Archive 4

Criticism
The criticism section lacks sources. Should we remove something? After all, is the ISS particoulary criticised so that we need a paragraph about it? Other space programs (STS, Hubble and so on...) have been much more the target of criticism: the Station didn't even suffer from major/critical hardware failures and we have no indication that the cost of ISS has ever been underestimated, as confirmed by the costs paragraph of our article. Can we please try to figure out the size of disappointment surrounding this project? ISS money waste returns five times less results than Shuttle money waste. // Duccio (write me) 10:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted this statement from the criticism section on the argument that the citation was secondary and no primary was available: "However, critics say that NASA broadly claims credit for 'spin-offs' that were actually developed independently by private industry". The reference was to a an article by Robert Park, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/4/park.htm. The claim that this sentence is not adequately sourced is untenable. The sentence summarizes what critics say. Robert Park is one of the most prominent critics of the space station in America, and he is also applauded by many other critics and skeptics in the scientific community. If the editor who deleted this wanted material evidence that the criticism is true, that might require a better reference. But then the right statement would be, "However, NASA broadly claims...".

In fact, I do think that the criticism is simply true: NASA expansively claims credit for spin-offs that were invented elsewhere. Since I do not have conclusive references on this point, I want to leave it at this. Greg Kuperberg 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence after this statement referencing NASA's page for ISS spinoffs.  I think there's probably a better way to state this in terms of balacing out the criticism.  The criticism statement is very broad and implies that NASA takes credit for inventing things it did not.  Viewing the many spinoff pages that NASA has, I don't think this is a fair assessment.  NASA clearly states (espcially in its Spinoff publication) exactly how they contributed to a project, whether it be providing help to a company to improve something the company invented, provide the technology to kick start an invention by a company, or actually invent something themselves.
 * While this statement is a referenced criticism from a noted critic, it does not provide any evidence to support the broad claim. While I have not edited it to state that the criticism does not have any examples to support itself, I can see adding that in later.  Cjosefy 22:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On one point you are right, at least in regards to NASA's careful list of spinoffs on its web site. The point is not so much what NASA itself claims as spinoffs, as the general perception that there have been tremendous spinoffs from programs such as the space station. For example, I have heard people say that NASA transformed computers, or that they invented Velcro and Tang and Teflon and thousands of other things, etc. NASA can benefit from these arguments, and slyly encourage them with its own arguments that sound similar but are much narrower, instead of vehemently refuting them. Your link to the NASA spinoffs page is very interesting, because the spinoffs there don't amount to a whole lot. They claim credit for a slightly better microwave oven, slightly better golf clubs, slightly better 360º cameras, and a few other things like that. Is that the best that they could brag about? The argument was "billions of dollars' worth of tangible benefits"; this sort of NASA page is clearly meant to encourage the argument without logically supporting it.

Anyway, I did change "claims credit" to "is credited". I also thought that it was only fair to add a statement that NASA's spinoff list is not remotely enough for the spinoff argument. Greg Kuperberg 00:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of ISS specific spinoffs is certainly not impressive. However, re-reading the paragraph, the criticisms seem to be aimed at the manned spaceflight program as a whole.  When referencing NASA's claims it is framed not by what came from the ISS, but what has come from all of human spaceflight.  With that in mind, I would probably change the NASA website reference to point to the main spinoff page which has much more information and far more impressive and substantial spinoffs.  As it stands now, I think claiming the spinoffs from the ENTIRE NASA manned spaceflight program are not impresive, and then linking to just the ISS spinoffs is not terribly fair.  I did not realize this yesterday.
 * Also, to be fair, the comment about "billions of dollar's worth of tangible benefits" is unsourced at worst, and at best may occur in the opinion article cited (and even there without any source to where this claim cam from). Since NASA has an entire spinoff website, it might be more effective to get some actual words from NASA that state what they claim the spinoff benefit has been.  If we get that, the criticism from Park is more meaningful because it is framed in terms of what we show as NASA's own words. Cjosefy 11:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably what Park has in mind in particular is what NASA's allies in Congress (which is to say, most of it) say about spinoffs rather than NASA would put on their own web site. Of course on a static, official web page, they're going to be very technical and careful. But meanwhile the politicians who provide the money can justify it with all kinds of unsupported claims and outright nonsense. Look here for example. Weldon and Culberson not only casually claim billions of dollars of spinoffs, they specifically credit the space shuttle and the space station with curing diseases. Thanks to NASA, we have artificial limbs, and new antibiotics, and all kinds of other wonderful new things to help suffering, hospitalized Americans. Park would say that NASA is fully complicit in this kind of talk, even if their own statements are more careful. After all, these Congressmen provide the money.

I think that there is a certain veritas in having an unsourced statement that there have been billions of dollars of tangible benefits. I'm not saying that Wikipedia itself should stay unsourced. Rather, there is clearly a widespread public belief, which is not properly sourced, that there is a mountain of great spinoffs. The belief is not quite consistent as to whether it's NASA as a whole that deserves credit, or all of human spaceflight at NASA, or the shuttle or space station specifically. So I think that this section should be rephrased to say something about intuitive perceptions about spinoffs, rather than only living in a world of sourced arguments. Greg Kuperberg 14:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that public perception probably overstates NASA's impact. To think that NASA invents all these things is wrong, but it is true that NASA technology has played a part in a great deal of commercial products.  Artificial limbs have been helped by NASA technoloy.  Computers have been helped by NASA technology.
 * I think a fair criticism would be that NASA and its supporters tend to overstate the direct benifits and spinoffs from the technology in order to gain funding, BUT there is no denying that NASA technology has played significant roles in numerous products. We shouldn't focus on the "billions of dollars" stuff because I believe if you actual find all products that have encorporated some sort of NASA technology you would probably come up with "billions of dollars" worth of stuff. Cjosefy 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that some of the things that NASA has done in the past 50 years, if you take all sides of NASA, has had some important spinoffs. I happen to know an example: the JPL bounds for error-correcting codes. (But JPL is not human spaceflight.) I do not know if the incremental value of the spinoffs really add up to billions of dollars, but for all I know it does. It would kind-of bizarre if a high-technology agency did hundreds of different things over the course of decades and somehow never had any spinoffs.

But the argument on this particular page is more targeted than that. This is after all the ISS page, not the NASA page. In the absence of sources, the argument so far is: NASA has had great spinoffs, therefore let's fund the space station. Even if it were established that past NASA human spaceflight was particularly fruitful in spinoffs, it could have been for historical reasons that do not apply to the space station. Beyond that, there is a great deal of unquantified free association not only in public opinion, not only on the floor of Congress, but even in what you say. For example, you mention computer technology. Why is there no question that NASA has had a significant impact on computer technology? Because they bought and used computers? I buy and use computers too, but no one credits me with spinoffs just for that reason. Since you say that the spinoffs can't be denied, what really persuaded you?

Again, I think that a place for this Wikipedia page to start is the popular perceptions and especially political perceptions of spinoffs, in the absence of a clear argument about actual spinoffs. As for actual spinoffs of the space station specifically, your link to the official NASA page is very useful, because the spinoffs listed there are so modest that they clearly don't justify the space station. Greg Kuperberg 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * About ISS criticism, let me say one thing: "criticism" is too generic. The ISS is seen in a much different way depending on where you are. Here in Europe, for example, the station is percieved in a better light. I think we should speak of "criticism in the usa", "criticism in russia", etc. // Duccio (write me) 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In the absence of sourcing I find myself extremely skeptical of the spinoffs claim. The reason is that the space station doesn't seem like it does anything new - it's a replacement for Skylab, Mir, and every other orbiting vehicle going back to the days of flying monkeys.  I'll believe things like Mars rovers and Titan probes can generate spinoffs simply because they go where no machine has gone before and such, and similarly big space telescopes and other sensors can generate spinoffs because they do things no machine has done before.  But the only innovation I ever hear about with this project is innovative fund-raising. 70.15.116.59 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Space tools
Can we have an article on space tools? Is Space tools a good title? --Gbleem 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Space tools book excerpt.
 * I think that would be cool, as long as you had some content for it. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Life Span of the ISS
How long after completion is the ISS expected to remain a viable station? Is there any talk as to what will happen to the station if/when the time has come to abandon it?
 * The current schedule is 12 years to build it (1998-2010), 6 more years to operate it (to 2016). When abandoned, it will have to be carefully deorbited. Rmhermen 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could someone please explain to me why the station won't operate more than six years after it's finished being built? And that after all the money they spent putting the damn thing in orbit, they're just going to crash it into the ocean? Why doesn't it make more sense to use it for something, anything, in space since it's already there? I think that space exploration is important, but it seems hard to justify the expense if the station isn't even going to last as long as my first car, which was already ancient when I bought it and that I did not really know how to maintain. 05:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be safe to operate for at least six years. In reality, they most likely will keep using it, as long as deemed safe. However. remember that some core elements such as zarya and zvevda will then have been in use for over 18 years. That is a long time for any hardware, let alone for stuff that is operating in extreme heat/cold/radiation/micro-meteorite environments. To be in use long after that, several modules (Zarya, Zvezda, Unity, Destiny) will most likely have to be replaced, and since the US is going to Mars, only Russia, Europe, Japan and China will be able to do that. It would be a very complicated refit of the station. I think that the maximum use time of any module will be around 25 years. The solar panels and truss, with some extra panels might probably be usable a lot longer. All in all, it will come down to either building a complete new station, or continuously swapping out older components. Expect the involvement parties to start talks about this when it's finished in 2010. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I guess we have a ways to go in terms of improving the durability of "space architecture," but yeah, I can see why that would be a concern, especially since it's hard to go outside. . . . 10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say de-orbited, do you mean like Mir it will burn up in the atmosphere once the final crew has left, or will it be kept on Earth (i.e. parts in (a) museum). --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm sure I heard somewhere that NASA plan to fly the Shuttle successor, the Orion spacecraft to the station, after the shuttle's retired. --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean that they will let it crash on earth. It is impossible to ever bring something as large back to earth in any other way. Orion will service the space station between 2014 and 2016. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I guess the lunar outpost NASA plans to build will remove the need for a station in low earth orbit? --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 07:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I bet some NASA administrator-types would say, "We don't know what we don't know." That's because ISS is still teaching us what it takes to live in low-Earth orbit. We're figuring out the importance of micro-meteoroid protection, for example. Yet LEO might be one of the safest places in space -- protected by the Earth's magnetosphere from (most) radiation and solar wind. Higher orbits, and the surface of the Moon, don't get that protection. Maybe a LEO station will continue to be useful for a long time. But outposts at other locations in space -- the Moon's surface, or the Earth-Moon L-1 point, for example -- would have interesting uses too! (sdsds - talk) 10:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are right. BTW. in the STS-118 post landing conference, Griffin eluded to his worry about the post-shuttle and post-ISS times, with US funding focused fully on returning to the moon and reaching Mars. He said they were learning so much from building and maintaining ISS and that he was worried about what was gonna happen with all that experience after 2010 and 2016 (and also the lack of experience with other space-partners). As far as I know this is the first time that he said he was worried with the US solely focusing on moon/mars. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance that Google could to get its hands on the ISS after the six years and use it? Making it commercially viable, tourism, etc? I can't wait for the day commercial enterprises take to space and compete with states.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why would they de-orbit it? It sounds risky to people on the ground and would be a waste of a fine museum piece.  Even if everything on the station was defunct I would still think it could serve as a potential refuge after some disaster in space, or as a scaffold for unrelated future construction.  Maybe some day they could bring down souvenir modules with the space elevator - or in the shorter term, on return flights of empty shuttles. 70.15.116.59 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Without boosts (such as from the docked shuttle) and other station keeping manuevers, the station will fall by itself. I don't know how long that would take but the station is not anywhere near high orbit like the parking orbits they put retired geosynchronous satellites into. Rmhermen 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Zvezda service module, docked Progress spacecraft and ESA's ATV all have the capability to reboost the ISS using their own engines, so the absence of the Space Shuttle doesn't mean that the station's orbit will degenerate that much just by itself.Colds7ream 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The low orbit is the cause of the orbital degeneration. It is inevitable and if the station is left to itself as the questioner seems to imply, it will deorbit eventually itself. I would like to know the timeframe for that myself. Rmhermen 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have found that ISS was sinking at 300 feet a day after getting no shuttle visits for two years after Columbia, but apparently 100 feet a day is more usual. So unattended deorbit would be only a few years, less than 10 anyway. Rmhermen 18:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The basic rule for this (circular orbits, with unchanging exponential atmosphere) is that the time to disaster is about the time it would take for it to descend one scale height at the current rate of descent (which is actually not constant, since the rate increases as it gets lower), that is to such a height that the atmospheric density has increased by "one e-fold", or a factor of e = 2.7183.... The scale height (e-fold height) of the  atmosphere is around 7 km below about 80 km, but increasing (depending on the level of solar activity, and therefore considerably variable in time) above that. The rate of descent at a given height depends on the local density of the atmosphere, and on the mass density of the satellite averaged over its cross section.  Because of the effect of solar activity, it is poorly predictable over long periods at the altitudes of the ISS. Wwheaton (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed First Paragraph
I think this is cleaner (last sentence):

The International Space Station (ISS) is a research facility currently being assembled in space. The station is in a low Earth orbit (Box orbit) and can be seen from earth with the naked eye: its altitude varies from 319.6 km to 346.9 km above the surface of the Earth (approximately 199 miles to 215 miles). It travels at an average speed of 27,744 km (17,240 miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day. The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia (RKA), Japan (JAXA), Canada, (CSA) and Europe (ESA).[4]

If no one objects I'll just change it in a bit. Topher0128 20:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even with the footnote regarding ISS participation of members, it is not completely correct to state that ESA is the space agency of Europe. ESA is an inter-governmental agency. It is not the space agency of the EU. It is not the space agency of the continent. Even though it uglifies the sentence, it should probably read,"The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia (RKA), Japan (JAXA), Canada, (CSA), and the inter-governmental European Space Agency." Comments? (sdsds - talk) 01:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Box orbit? // Duccio 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is ambiguity in this article about the difference between statute miles and nautical miles. The box quotes figures in nautical miles, but the opening paragraph was listing statute miles for orbital speed. I have noted the typical height in statute miles and made the references explicitly state statute miles. I believe most Wikipedia readers would want the figure in statute miles. --Ben Best (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review concern
I am concerned this article fails to meet attribute 3a of the "good article" requirements. It does not address at least one major aspects of the topic, namely: station-keeping propulsion. I feel this is a serious ommission; serious enough that I wouldn't oppose a formal GA delisting review. Of course adding material covering this aspect would fix the concern, but the article is already marked as being "too long". What's the right way to approach this catch-22? (sdsds - talk) 04:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we need a total restructuring of the article. I think these are some of the main things we should address and structure the article with. We need to move a lot of esp. costs and criticism to a sub article in my point of view. We need to address in an "accessible" way the following points, and move a lot of the details to subarticles.


 * Lead (which is actually good these days)
 * History
 * Design (goals?)
 * Components (what [life,science,boost] is where by who), docking systems, arm, truss)
 * Propulsion (CMG, progress boosts, computers)
 * Life Systems (Water, Waste, O2, CO2, supplies??)
 * Electric System (SAW, batteries, SSPTS)
 * Communication systems (bands, bandwidth, cams, email, ham)
 * Science aboard ISS (type of experiments)
 * Living aboard ISS (Exercising, daily schedule, Expeditions)
 * Criticism
 * Costs (expected cost, total cost, cost of maintaining)
 * Legal structure (law in space)


 * These are my ideas, but I might have forgotten some stuff. One thing we should avoid, is launchdates of components, and being overzealous in making sure we name EVERY single component in the main article. We should focus on clarity and summarizing and on completeness of topics over detail of a single topic. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from comments:


 * This article about an orbiting spacecraft has no description of its orbital station-keeping systems. No spacecraft article deserves GA status without a discussion of that! (sdsds - talk) 04:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Added section on altitude control. 199.125.109.129 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is what?
jumping around I saw this article, but there is no diagram of what each bit is and does, which was the first thing I wondered seeing the nice picture. ESA had the pictures.. http://www.esa.int/esaHS/isselements.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.106.32 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Crew Capacity?
It would be nice if there was some information about crew capacity. I know the original capacity was 2 and the current capacity is 3, but what about capacity upon completion? And at what point will the next crew size increase occur? Are they waiting on the addition of another module, or is the issue with the Soyuz (which only has a capacity of 3) still being used as an escape vehicle? --Galactoise 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be great if we could find a way to make the article address this more directly. In today's Houston Chronicle Mark Carreau wrote, "Harmony includes living space for two more resident astronauts. The station's partnership plans to double the station's occupancy to six astronauts in 2009." I think you are correct that six is the next "magic" number because that is the escape capacity of two Soyuz-TMA spacecraft, but I have no source to cite for that. (sdsds - talk) 14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes 6 is the maximum capacity in the end. This flight carries some of the required equipment, but one of the ULF (supply flights of shuttle) needs to occur as well before 6 people capacity is established. This is one of the effects of Columbia btw. Before Columbia, Columbus and Kibo would have launched after the 6 person capability would have been established, I believe. Also, the original ISS design (with full russian section and, US habitation module as well as US escape module) would have allowed for at least 9 astronauts. Even earlier designs (Station Freedom) had talked about 25 people. For smaller periods of time it's possible to let some 15 or so people stay aboard (this is for Shuttle emergency cases). For 6 crews there will also have to be two soyuz craft off course. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How does space tourism affect crew capacity? I'm confused by the mismatch between the stunning $130 billion price tag for the station and the measly $25 million per space tourist.  If the station costs at least $6000 million a year for a crew capacity of 2-3 people, shouldn't the cost be much, much higher? 70.15.116.59 03:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this relate to the question poised above ? If you want to utter criticisme, instead of building an encyclopedia article, then please go visit one of the many space related fora that are available on the internet. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the question was related to reconciling the cost of operating the station versus the income from tourists who visit - which, so far as accuracy goes, is valid. I would note, though, that tourists never stay at the station for more than a few days, while the expedition crews are in-flight for six months or more. So, for the proportion of time that the tourists spend compared to the total crew time spent at the station, the ratio seems reasonable. The cost figures in the article look OK to me. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The price tag for tourist correlates much more closely to the $25 million cost of the expendable Soyuz capsule that carries them into space, than to anything related to the station. Rmhermen 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there are 2 Soyuz flights a year to the ISS. ISS crews have a crew duration of 6 months. Because NASA is providing the crew rotation for one person, Roskosmos has one spare seat on each Soyuz which they do not need to use for the permanent crew exchange. They could either fill it with a Russian cosmonaut who would basically only stay a couple of days on the ISS doing limited work, or they could sell the seat to ISS partners like ESA or JAXA or rent it to a tourist. They charge as much as they can charge for such flights - which currently is 25 million USD. In the future, once we have a 6 crew capacity and no Shuttle flights anymore, it will very likely be that there will not be any seats for tourists available anymore, except if NASA comes up with a new crew vehicle between 2010 and 2015 (first flight of Orion to ISS). Themanwithoutapast 20:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be great if the article covered more of the plans for future station utilization. Does NASA nominally get two of the six crew positions during the 2010-2015 interval? (BTW, the Director General of ESA says NASA currently intends to stop funding ISS in 2015. ) (sdsds - talk) 03:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first 6-person flight in 2009 will, according to an unsourced Wikipedia article (Expedition 19), have two or three Americans aboard at different times. Rmhermen 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Article names of the modules
I was looking into the main US built modules and their articles on wikipedia. There is somewhat of a naming irregularity it seems.

The problem is that NASA keeps changing the names and not making it clear if functions are part of the name. For instance. Is it Unity (or UNITY as it says on the module itself) or is it Unity Connecting Module, is it Destiny or Destiny Laboratory Module? One thing is sure, it's not Unity Module it seems. It's one of the reasons I renamed the Harmony Module article to Harmony (ISS module). I personally am of the opinion that we should stay with the "pure" names Unity, Harmony, Destiny, Kibo, Columbus, Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs etc, and then add (ISS module) as a dab where needed. But what do we do with the "functional" designations? Do we present these in the lead of the various articles ? I'm somewhat at a loss what to do with all these article title.

So what do you guys think? Should we have just the "given names" of the modules, or should we use the Technical names? If we use technical names, are the "given names" part of those technical names, and how do we make sure all this information is included in a readable way in the article ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, this is interesting. Nice job for spotting this, DJ! NASA often refers to Unity as the "Unity node" (probably the most common way it is referred to, aside from simply "Unity"), and Destiny is called the "Destiny lab" most often, next to simply Destiny. But, for example, Zvezda is most often simply called the "SM", or "Service Module", and not as often by its name. I personally think the changes you have made are good, and the suggestions I'd make are: Unity - I think it either needs to be named simply Unity (ISS) or Unity Node. Zvezda, I'd name Zvezda (ISS Module), as that's what it is. Zarya: Zarya (ISS) would be appropriate as well. As for the technical names, I think yes, absolutely those should all be given exactly as NASA/RSA/ESA/JAXA lists them, in the lead sentence, in bold, similar to biographies where the person's birth name is different than the name they go by (See Bill Clinton). I don't have any strong feelings about the naming issues, as long as the redirects are all covered. Let me know if you want any help re-doing the lead sentences on the articles, DJ, I'd be more than happy to help. Ariel  ♥  Gold  15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article naming issue is tough! I support the suggestion of migrating to "given name", plus an (ISS module) dab if required. There is also the question of how to refer to each module in article text. I prefer to once write e.g.: "the  Unity connecting module," and then subsequently just write, "Unity." The Quest and Pirs airlocks are particularly problematic cases: I see no point in cluttering text with "Joint" this or "Docking" that, unless or until the joint or docking aspects of the modules are used. (sdsds - talk) 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At least, we should only have one dab phrase. Either (ISS) or (ISS module) but not both. At least one article should be moved. I would support a move to (ISS module); it's slightly more clear that the subject is a subsystem. Rmhermen 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, within the DAB guidelines is also a line that goes along the lines of: "never use an abbreviation as the sole dab". So no (ISS), but (ISS module) is ok. Similarly, no (TV), but (TV episode) is just fine.
 * The Quest one is particularly tricky, because in that case i think i might be wrong on the "given name". It might be "Quest Joint Airlock", but I could look into that at a later time if needed. All in all, I think staying with the "given names" is simply better. We use Space Shuttle over Space Transportation System as well, and we see that pattern in most of the other space related articles as well. I will be looking into finding some source to find the technical names of all the components at least. I have no idea for instance if the technical name for Unity is "Unity Connecting module" or "Node 1" or "Node 1 connecting module". If I can find some better sources, then I'll make the remainder of the changes. to get this a bit more inline with what sdsds was describing. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Added Cupola. Ariel  ♥  Gold  10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something?
Is it just me, or have we somehow lost the list of components of the space station? Colds7ream 09:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's now in Assembly of the International Space Station. We need better ways to link from this article to that one! (sdsds - talk) 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Or were you looking for the ISS modules navbox? (sdsds - talk) 05:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The first of the two - I was thinking something similar to the Mir article? Colds7ream 07:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've started to build us a Mir-style table with details of the pressurised modules - feedback would be appreciated. Colds7ream (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * >feedback would be appreciated
 * I don't know much about this, but it looks good, thanks for your efforts.
 * Would it be an idea to mention who built or owns each module, either in a column (but then the table becomes too wide?) or in the text? --RenniePet (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to note that the builder and the "owner" are often different. The U.S. purchased Zarya from Russia. Harmony (Node 2) and Node 3 were built in Italy but traded to the U.S. in exchange for various services. Columbus was contributed by ESA, but some fraction of the rack space (half?) is for U.S. use. So adding that kind of information would require at least two extra columns in the table! (The table is looking good, BTW!) (sdsds - talk) 03:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much - glad you like it! :-) If we want builder & owner columns on the table too, we could make them quite small and use flags? Possibly making it too wide could put some distortion in, particularly on the image & 'purpose' columns? Colds7ream (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There we go, folks! What do we think of that? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This section is now one of the best in the article. Thanks for your good work on it! Reviewing the article as a whole, I'm bummed that the modular nature of the ISS design isn't mentioned explicitly in the introduction. Ideally it should be possible for a reader to read the intro, see something of interest, click on the appropriate entry in the table of contents, and continue reading. I don't think that flow would happen much right now though. Maybe we should craft a sentence about it that could go into the intro section? (sdsds - talk) 06:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

ISS Computer Systems
Is there really absolutely no information about what kind of computer infrastructure there is on the space station? Is it top secret? What hardware do they use, what software, who developed what? I'd be fascinated to know all of that. (Eeyore22 00:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
 * It is actually such a mix of a variety of Russian and US systems and parts, that unless we could get ahold of the actual inventory, I'm not sure we could adequately explain it. I know that many of the computers are running very old versions of Windows (like, Win 98, that type of old), because of issues with upgrading one system and ending up not being able to communicate with another system, they have some really, really old laptops in Zvezda, and some newer ones in Destiny, but I don't think that there is actually anywhere that does document it all. The best that can be done is what information was given during the computer issues, which wasn't really much, the four computers that are the backbone of the Russian portion are custom servers, from the info I understood. I can look into it some more, and of course I may be wrong, but I think it might be close to impossible to accurately document the hundreds of computers on board, and how they all interact. Ariel  ♥  Gold  00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, i would had thought that such important computers would run some kind of custom OS rather then windows. >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.169.41.47 (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You have new fatal errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagittarian Milky Way (talk • contribs) 05:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Heheheh, they actually do get the dreaded BSOD, and sometimes the crew calls it that, lol. Most of the computers that operate the environmental, life support, attitude control, the daily operation of the station, etc., yes, those are special computers with specialized software. But there are a great many laptops on board, that do require operating systems. The crew uses WorldMap, and other software designed specifically for NASA, but they also use things like Microsoft Outlook to send and receive email, which run under a Windows environment. You know, though, it really must be a kind of special nightmare to figure out which system runs what, and what version, and to ensure that they all are able to communicate with each other, lol. I've looked, but I'm not really able to find any NASA documents that go into the specifics of all of the computers on board. Last year's issue with the Russian main computers is about as detailed as I've seen, and those aren't the only computers they use, so, I'm not sure there would be anything that could really be written concisely and verified with sources. I'll keep looking, though. Ariel  ♥  Gold  07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Budget
Do we have any budget info newer than 2005? I mean, this stuff is publicly available information. 24.176.136.25 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Future of the ISS
It would seem that some people have had various issues with this article, and I have my own now. In the lead it says:


 * The projected completion date is 2010, with the station remaining in operation until around 2016.

Can someone tell me what in heck this means? It's completed in 2010, okay, that means they stop sending up more modules. Does that mean it's still habited? Does that mean they take it to a higher orbit (seems to be implied by the current statements on low orbit) - will they still run missions to it? They're supposed to be aggressively doing experiments at that time right?

And what about 2016? Does it get dropped into the ocean at that time? Because that's the #1 thing that I want to know. The "Future" section mentions it in context of many future missions, but only in the capacity of experience. Will it be physically assisting in future missions, or will it be a crater by that time?

The later quote of "NASA must complete the ISS so it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule in finished form." seems to imply that it is on the schedule to abandon after "operation" is halted, but the article never directly addresses this. I would like for it to do so. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe it simply means no US financial support is planned after FY 2016. Of course the thing does require considerable money simply to operate and supply.  Since the US does not plan to continue operating the space shuttle after FY 2010, and has no planned capability to launch supplies or change crews for most of the interval from 2010 to 2016, after that date those responsibilities will presumably mostly fall upon others -- the Russians, the new European ATV being launched on Ariane 5, or on various other possible vehicles that may appear by then.  Some fraction of the roughly constant (orange region in the NASA budget graph) ISS costs must be for pure construction (and that may be freed for science or other useful purposes after 2010), but much must be for ground operations, US crew training, etc.


 * Robert Park is noteworthy as a critic of any human space exploration, but the situation does indeed make his bitter prediction sound all too likely to come bitterly true. Abandoning the ISS in 2016 in order to mount a severely underfunded assault on the Moon and Mars all bears a horrible resemblance to the US throwing away the Apollo/Saturn lunar system it had developed by 1969 to build the space shuttle.  One difference is that other nations are involved, and they should have some say in the outcome.  But since NASA is designated in the IGA treaty as manager, the US may have the final word if there are political reasons the administration simply wants to dump the project in the Pacific.  Does anyone know the real situation about this?  I should think the partners would be interested, at least.


 * So yes, it is planned that it will be operated, with US participation only until 2016. After that, who knows?  This is of course justified to make room in the NASA budget for the Bush Administration's Vision for Space Exploration, shown as "Exploration Missions" on the budget graph.


 * I must state that I personally am a strong believer in the intrinsic value of human expansion into space, so my own POV on that is not at all neutral. I also believe that the ISS could play a useful role in supporting such expansion.  Yet this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox, and the procedures to get an argument entered into it, properly and objectively, are well defined and well considered, as even a fanatic space believer like me must admit.  I think that means recalling, retelling (and of course referencing!) all the old physics-based arguments for why a space station can be a useful step, even if they have not been used by NASA in its official justifications.  Arguments concerning the fundamental value of human space exploration and settlement must mostly either go entirely outside Wikipedia, or be retold and referenced in other Wiki articles, be referenced via them, and via them have their own verifiable roots.  Thus I think your question is very well taken, and probably deserves a clearer answer than it currently receives in the article.  But the path to a full and proper remedy appears arduous. Wwheaton (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Statute versus nautical miles
I just made an edit above to Proposed First Paragraph, but I will repeat it in this section so that it does not get lost. There was ambiguity in this article about the difference between statute miles and nautical miles. The box quotes figures in nautical miles, but the opening paragraph was listing statute miles for orbital speed. I have noted the typical height in statute miles and made the references explicitly state statute miles. I believe most Wikipedia readers would want the figure in statute miles. --Ben Best (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, as long as metric units (km) are stated also, which I think should always appear in any scientific or technical context. Wwheaton (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Orbit parameters precision
I think we have a minor problem with the orbit parameters of ISS in the infobox at the top right. It seems to me that as it stands now, we have orbit parameters specified with such high precision as to be rendered incorrect within a very short time, a few days or less. The altitude changes more or less continuously with a range of several km every orbit, both due to the apogee-to-perigee and Earth oblateness effect, and the mean altitude changes by 0.1 km or so in a day or two. The orbital period changes accordingly. The altitude control section tells us it varies from 278 to 460 km, so how can we quote these numbers to such precision? We could give a link to the latest available orbital elements (? revised about once per week I suppose), which should allow an experienced person to figure out the details in between, but it seems to me it would be more sensible to just quote ranges or typical values (with rough, 10 or 30 km accuracy), rather than show precision that is not real. Wwheaton (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that's occurred to me as well in the past. I think perhaps giving a range, as you suggest, with a source that will verify both the range, and the fluctuation, would be the best thing. Or, perhaps a mean altitude number, using http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=1130 as one source, and http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16178 this page, which says the mean altitude as of 2005 was 355.7 km. Ariel  ♥  Gold  03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The famous heavens-above site, http://www.heavens-above.com/issheight.asp, gives the average height for the most recent 365 days (apparently). How about taking the midpoint of that graph, to 10 km accuracy, as the recent typical height, and giving the range quoted in the Altitude control section (278-460 km) as max and min?  It probably wouldn't hurt to give a link to the 2-line orbit elements somewhere, assuming that does not violate US export regulations or some such.


 * Then in the infobox I would change apogee and perigee to the max and min altitudes, 278 & 460 km, and change the orbital speed and the period to the values corresponding to the recent typical altitude above.


 * This all implies the need to revise the recent typical altitude now and then, and recompute the derived numbers accordingly. I see that some other numbers are being updated already.  I could undertake this new chore for now, and leave the mathematical prescriptions here, so anyone else could continue it if I can't for any reason.  Less maintenance intensive would be to just call the typical altitude, say, 350 km, which roughly splits the max and min, and let it go at that, giving all the other numbers so to correspond correctly, with appropriate precision. Let me know what you all think, it is likely to be a week or two before I get to it, or longer if it is controversial.  Wwheaton (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * At present the apogee and perigee values in the infobox are quoted in the 300 km range. That puts the ISS in the earth's core, since apogee and perigee are distances to the centre of mass of the system. The numbers quoted are maximum and minimum altitudes. I stand to be corrected. Ronstew (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perigees and apogees of artificial satellites are commonly referred as a distance above Earth's surface. — Chesnok (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, strictly speaking, it is not such a good terminology when the fact that the Earth is not really spherical is taken into account. Then, even in the absence of atmospheric drag, the altitude changes with time, and even for a perfectly circular orbit, with the anomaly (that is, phase in the orbital period) if the orbit is inclined, as it is for ISS.  As an extreme case, I think a slightly eccentric polar orbit could have its maximum altitude at perigee (if over either pole), and minimum altitudes twice an orbit over the equator.  To avoid such confusion I would would say "altitude at" (either perigee or apogee) rather than just perigee or apogee when hieght above the surface is intended.  And in such cases I would only quote the numbers to the 20 or 30 km precision introduced by the Earth's oblate shape. This is a fussy issue for a nearly spherical planet, I've been meaning to touch up the article to clarify these matters.


 * On a different, but related point, would anyone object to changing the section title from "Altitude control" to "Orbit"? I think that this better reflects the situation that the main orbit parameters (semi-major axis, inclination, and eccentricity) of earth satellites are nearly constant and characterize the orbit, while altitude and height are only coarsely defined except at a given instant.  And, a previous comment notwithstanding, "station keeping" is a precision (and in that sense, minor) issue for ISS, especially as smaller vehicles typically maneuver around it, rather than vice versa.  The need for orbit maintenance against drag losses is essential, but would still fit within a section headed "Orbit".  Wwheaton (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Zone: GMT vs UTC
In the Time Zone section it is written that the ISS uses GMT (which was phased out in the early 70's) as apposed to UTC. I thought this was an error so looked into it further. Reference 62 which in turn links to http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/Rocket_Sci/clocks/time-gmt.html actually describes UTC. I had a look at the NASA ISS website and all the timeline pdf's state time in GMT. Does anyone know of an "official" reference which states that the station uses UTC? --Daleh T 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know no such official source. However it is definitely UTC. Its just "user error" that GMT gets used so much troughout NASA. Also has a lot to do with "old habits die hard" and the fact that US military lingo defined "Zulu" time as "GMT" well into the 90s (then again, i was taught about GMT well into the 90s as well :D ). There must be a reference somewhere that the Station uses military atomic clocks to sync their time against. That should be proof enough that it UTC. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Energy
After reading this thoughtful article, and the fascinating discussions, I am struck by how wasteful space exploration is today. It's all throw-away work, much more science-fair dazzle than civilized progress. I'm left wondering whether the severest limitation on space exploration will prove to be our energy technology. I'm curious what portion of the hundreds of billions to get it up there (and judging from the graph, $2+ billion/year to keep it buoyed up) are purely energy (power on the ground, fuel, power in orbit). I have the impression the energy for higher-orbit protection from cosmic rays (when that's even feasible) will be much higher than that for LEO boosting. So as long as we're primarily a dinosaur-juice-burning race, we won't get very far off the ground for very long. And I don't mean to be flippant when I say I'd also like to hear more technical insight about the whole dropping into the ocean thing. It should come as no surprise; no comparison with the lifecycle of automobiles is deserved; and the event should be celebrated not scorned.

Maybe the real vision for space development around the globe is not so much "to boldly go" but "more power mister scott". Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, but this talk page is specifically for discussion of the improvement of the International Space Station article itself. While some sources may echo your criticism (and, thus, could be cited in the criticism of the article, if any), this really isn't the forum for that sort of thing. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be that Space exploration would be a good place to put further effort into developing material that covers this from a neutral point of view. Best regards! (sdsds - talk) 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and am a little embarrassed about my rant above earlier on the issue of what happens after 2015. And even in the Space exploration context, it must preserve NPOV, verifiability, etc, and not just be someone's opinion.  I am really passionate about this subject (ie, pro-human expansion into space), which puts me in a bit of a bind in this context, but I think preserving Wikipedia's principles is essential to any sane encyclopedia's credibility.  I suppose those of us of like mind really need to go out and find  published cogent reasoned arguments on the issue to reference(or even publish better ones ourselves if we aren't satisfied with what is out there), and then come back here. There really are excellent grounds, scientific, technical, and humanistic, for supporting the an inhabited space station, many of which have been documented in the literature for decades.  Wwheaton (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)