Talk:Maintenance of the International Space Station

Original name Major incidents involving the International Space Station

Meeting between Top Brass, General concerns addressing Major Incidents in relation to ISS.
These aren't Major Incidents at all ! a torn solar panel or a leaky radiator is not a Major incident, maybe not even a minor incident. Come on, a robot spacecraft slamming into your space station is a Major incident. Papercuts or one crewmember shouting 'BOO' behind another crewmember doesn't need a newpaper article headline.

Anyhow, on a serious note, the columbia disaster is a major, yes, I am willing to call that one major incident involving the space shuttle columbia not the ISS it didn't hit the ISS, it wasn't caused by the ISS, the ISS crewmembers all have alibis.

Certainly the disaster involved scheduling changes and even job losses? on the ground, and delays in scheduling ISS items.

Fire is a major incident on any space station.

Depressurization is a major incident on a space station, only if it is rapid enough. There are oil leaks in cars, and then there are oil leaks in cars, was this leak fast enough to warrant major ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the term "Major" sounds a bit strong (especially when you compare them to the things Mir went through!).. do you have a better suggestion for a name? Broadly speaking this article has a poorly defined scope. But it is good to group together these incidents. I think one of the things that sets them apart is the amount of surrounding press coverage. Mlm42 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, on the ISS page, I made a new section called Maintainence and moved 95% of this stuff into that category. The rest of it, was like so small, there was almost nothing left. But here, lets make a item by item rundown of major incidents that involved the ISS, and see what could be renamed maintainence, and what needs dealing with.


 * Columbia.The assembly was delayed, and they couldn't put their garbage out without the shuttle. Ok, so we know I'm not screaming Oh the humanity over that one. Is it maintainence? not at all. Is it mentioned somewhere else ? Yes, there is a big fat section named Columbia disaster and changes in construction plans on the Assembly of the space station page. Completely covered there, even mentions the garbage problem. I suggest linking to that from the ISS page directly, rather than this page. Just delete it from here.


 * Air Leak I'm seeing a mistake already, air leaks do not build up. Ok, I'm reading if the crew didn't find it on the first few looks, they may have needed to look some more or try something else in order to find it. I'm not seeing the crew even potentially caring about this, rename to maintainence.


 * Smoke from the life support, there is no getting around that one, Fire, or even the threat of fire, is a Major incident on a space station, in your house it's no big deal cause you can run outside, you get the picture. Even though it wasn't fire, it's STILL major as it's effecting their atmosphere. That's major, or at least like medium, and has the potential to be majorish. Can't open a window. Anyhow, what I suggest is popping that one onto Expedition 13's page, and linking to it there. There is plenty of real estate too, STS's gets plenty of hot air, but expedition pages are nice quiet libraries. That page is anorexic, for the love of god give it something to eat.


 * Computer malfunction. Maintainence. NASA reported that without the computer that controls the oxygen levels, the station had 56 days of oxygen available.[8] Primary systems were fixed the next day, returning everything to normal. The day after that, backup systems were functioning as well. Just in the nick of time.


 * Torn solar panel, faulty rotary joint. oh the humanity...


 * Thruster programming causes 'vibration'. I've taught people to drive, they can't operate the throttle very well, but unless you hit your head or something, there is no insurance claim. The thrusters were operating perfectly, not exploding, not ripping the station to shreds (btw they are not actually designed to be capable of destroying the station, they aren't that powerful) it's a software fault, Hal let Dave back inside. This isn't a maintainence problem, the machine, like a car, was working fine. User error? I don't know where to put it. trivia ?


 * Two ammonia leaks, One Maintainence, one trivia. It took them a week to go outside and fix it. what was the power useage at that time ? I'm thinking you could research into it, to see if it did effect a few of the more power hungry experiments, but it's 'scheduling' or delete if you can't find something that says they had to shut something off due to a lack of cooling capacity. This is wannabee scheduling that needs research to get that far.


 * Oh hey, thats it, thats all of them. Well, I do sound like I'm playing it down, but put it into perspective, Soyuz 11 the crew asphyxiated and died, Soyuz 1 the lone Cosmonaut Died after a bloody hard struggle. Columbia, 7 dead, they didn't learn their lesson and did it all over again. These are all listed on a page called List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents no mention of 'Major' at all. Hose the title, call it maintainence, and then go looking for the MIR impact and see how it compares. Actually, maybe a broader look still, for weaseling caused from american-centric media. It's fine for them, good luck to them, but there is nothing stopping us from standing up and making things Neutral. Either 'Major' is a legitimate wikiword applied according to some kind of plan, or it's a weasel word. Penyulap   talk 10:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Re 'I think one of the things that sets them apart is the amount of surrounding press coverage.' I agree that the press is a problem, but the press is not interested in reality, they just like headlines. There is a media section in the ISS section, it was started just to make it short and sweet to inform editors who kept changing the article to say the ISS was complete, but of course, it's not going to hurt to expand it's scope to include the press coverage of maintainence as well. There is no shortage of badmouthing and exaggerating that goes on, maybe a few well researched items from major media outlets use of 'weasel' words (aka lies/hype) MIR got the treatment over and over, some astronaut who visited, not at the same time as the robot ship hit, but another time, wrote a book with a title something like 'my harrowing escape from the DOOMED MIR' or something like that. those issues are an article, if not a section by themselves. I almost caught Russia Today saying that Baikonur was the only way for people to get into space, a reporter said it, but when i went to the website, it said 'soon to be' so I didn't know how to cite it, and it was just the reporter, not the network. NHK TV sayid that the HTV was the 'only' way to get large items to the ISS after sts135, which no doubt would have surprised ESA as well as RSA. Plenty of scope to put these things in their correct place, rather than make an article title based on weasel words. Although, certainly 'major incidents on the ISS should re-direct to here. (so should 'fire on the ISS', but 'godzilla runs amok on ISS' is a stretch)  Penyulap   talk 08:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oxygen generator failure
Just wondered why this list doesn't include the oxygen generator failure in 2005? Robert Walker (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also the oxygen issues in 2011

I've just added these and some other incidents to the page, with cites. Robert Walker (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Article content does not match name
Content seems to be a list of failure incidents that needed repair. No coverage of preventive maintenance or the maintenance requirements to extend IS operations. [https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY14/IG-14-031.pdf Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024. Sept 2014] might be a good source for the later (if it were discussed here) - Rod57 (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Probably simpler to rename (back?) to ISS major incidents or similar ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)