Talk:Tiangong-1/Archive 2

Resemblance with the Salyout stations
Shouldn't the resemblance with the Salyut program be mentioned in the article? This station, just like China's space capsules Shenzhou, greatly look like USSR/Russian's spaceships. Xionbox₪ 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think Tiangon-1 looks like the Salyut stations?--Craigboy (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is why Wikipedia bans WP:original synthesis... Wnt (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another pathetic attempt to say that Chinese copy Russians/Americans etc....get a life. You can't bare the fact they are successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.40.176 (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the Shenzhou spacecraft, Feitian EVA suit, Chinese launch entry suit, the Chinese docking mechanism, and the Chinese automated docking system are all essentially copies of Russian technology (especially the last three).--Craigboy (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a resemblance to Salyut would be OR. It would also be wrong. If any of the Tiangong modules resembles Salyut (or more accurately, the later DOS models that formed the backbone of Mir and the Russian segment of the ISS) it would be Tiangong 3. GrampaScience (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and a whale looks like a big fish which looks like a submarine which looks like a torpedo. All large airliners look almost identical. "Function creates form". Of course all spacecraft look like each other! It means nothing. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply to 42.98.40.176, I actually think it is very good they are successful and such little time. The more space programs, the better. However, as Craigboy said, a lot of the Chinese space program parts and systems are very identical to the Russian ones.
 * Function does not always create form, and that's what we call innovation. Otherwise, we would all still be driving cars which look like four-wheeled calashes. Even when you compare the Apollo capsules with Gemini's, Soyouz, Dragon's and Orion, there are major differences. These differences are very slim when comparing the Chinese space program and the Russian's.
 * Anyhow, I agree, adding this information would be considered as Original Research.
 * Xionbox₪ 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating it is the same as a Salyut may well be OR, however, wp:lede requires that the article is in context. Exactly what provides the context needed to understand a given topic varies greatly from topic to topic. To put Tiangong in context amongst similar projects doesn't look like OR to me, just so long as no unsourced statements of fact are made. I do not doubt Craigboy knows what the chinese are up to, they have purchased docking systems from the russians, we can find links for that. I think the easiest way to do that is to simply ask Craigboy what he recalls about what he has read, so you can find it, of course if you ask, he may kindly give you some links.


 * I think saying Salyut 6, Salyut 7, and Tiangong 1 all have 2 docking ports is not WP:OR. But to say they are the same kind of docking ports does indeed need a reference or it is WP:OR. The ports are similar, the Chinese did purchase some technology from the Russians, but they are not the same docking port. You'll find that out when we find the reference for it. One of the improvements over Russian designs is the manned spacecraft service module, it can fly by itself, and becomes a military intelligence imaging satellite once discarded. If it separates before the de-orbit burn then it may not be the safest idea though, but it's a trafeoff. Penyulap   talk 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

New bot has a task ready for this article
There is a bot that Z and I have been tinkering with, and although it's nowhere near ready for it's primary task, the bot can help out editors if they want the help with orbital information. The primary task is copying spaceship launch table data from the busy wikipedia sites across to lots of other quieter sites (like with the ISS, there are 77 languages at least check, and most of those are too quiet for people to bother updating new launches and so forth, or even write more than a stub really), but that's not the subject right now !

At the moment, it is a simple task for the bot to collect data from the internet, actually it's done it already once or twice for testing. So using it's data, you can say something like this which auto updates.

The code for that looks like this:

As of, Tiangong 1 has a perigee of kms and an apogee of  kms. It is making revolutions per day and has completed a total of  orbits.

some of the information it can provide is :

gives Tiangong 1

gives Tiangong 1

gives Tiangong 1

gives Tiangong 1

gives Tiangong 1

suggestions welcome, and how often should it update ? like it is easy enough to add the values into a formula that updates itself, so that even without fresh data, the tally of orbits could update by itself, but I am wondering, firstly, is it a good bot task, and secondly, if so, how often should it update ? maybe only when the data is getting bad ?

The fastest update interval would be about 1 day, faster than that is possible, but not useful, the bot fetches it's two line elements from heavens-above. Chris peat tells me they get it about ever three hours, or was it four times a day from the US.gov website where it's only updated on a daily basis. The updating wouldn't appear in the edit summary of the article, because the bot edits the template, not the article. Penyulap  talk 11:14, 17 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. Pictures! we need Pictures !!!! But I haven't done any of the work yet Craigboy, sorry. Penyulap  ☏  12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty useful - are you going to use this bot on a lot of spaceflight articles? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking it's more for the stations in orbit, that seems to be where editors like the number of orbits information and to keep up with the current things, like the scheduled dockings. On old satellite articles the information doesn't seem to be as popular, I think the orbits field wasn't written into the template for satellites for that purpose according to the templates docs, but is used that way on all the stations where the data is available (and where it's not, vandalism is used instead). It's also used that way on Vanguard 1 but I think there are technical problems I need to investigate there, I think that the TLE format may not allow numbers as large as is required to express more than is it 10,000 or 100,000 ? orbits, I don't yet know.


 * I can add data to the template for almost any satellite on request. At the moment it's just for the ISS, Tiangong 1, Genesis I and Genesis II. I can forsee editors may like it for other things when it's something like Fobos-Grunt in the public spotlight.


 * Oh that reminds me, it should technically be used on OPSEK as well, as it's in orbit right now, contrary to it's infobox. Penyulap  ☏  23:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese
pt:Ficheiro:Shenzhou-9.png has the SZ-9/TG-1 patch

-- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Tiangong-1's pressurized volume
Hi all. I saw that TG-1's total pressurized volume is stated as 15 cubic meters here. I've seen Chinese sources (here's the only English source that I can dig out with the same quote: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1104&MainCatID=11&id=20111007000028) that quoted the engineer in charge of the design of TG-1 that TG-1's actual pressurized volume is about 40 cubic meters; the 15 cubic meters number refers to the space that astronauts can freely move about. If no-one's opposing, I'll make the change. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the 15 cubic meters seems ridiculously low – for comparison Salyut 1 had an pressurized volume of 99 cubic meters, the Apollo command module had more than 6 cubic meters, the Apollo Lunar Module had 6.7 cubic meters, the Soyuz has more than 7 cubic meters of living space – and considering that the Shenzhou spacecraft (which docked to the station) is smaller than the station, but substantially larger than a Soyuz spacecraft. I'd even say that the "space that astronauts can freely move about" is a bit larger than 15 cubic meters judging by the video I have seen – more like 20 cubic meter (2 meter by 2 meter by 5 meter), plus change (the bunks on the left/right, the "cones" at the end).


 * If someone has good sources for the total pressurized volume, than please by all means add them. --Tony Mach (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Interior of Tiangong 1
In case some of you are curious http://newscontent.cctv.com/news.jsp?fileId=120456

--Craigboy (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone upload some interiors under fair-use? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Failure?
Recently I discovered that there are some news on the Internet saying Tiangong-1 has failed. However, after research multiple sites and stories that covering this topic, there's no evidence and report from any majoy space research facility including NASA and CNSA has indicate that Tiangong-1 has failed.

The only news agency that says failure in the paragraph is space daily. However, Space Daily didn't provide any valid source in their news. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lessons_from_Tiangong_1_999.html

In the paragraph of Post-mission completion failure, no source says: 'all telemetry had failed'. According to space.com which quotes information from Chinese Xinhua.net, Tiangong-1 has already stopped data-gathering activities instead 'all telemetry had failed'. The reason why they stopped data-gathering activities is the Tiangong-1 has meet its design life of 2 years. You won't call a satellite 'failed' because it's operation is correctly over.

Basic knowledge here: Tiangong-1 is an experimental space laboratory, not the station of Tiangong Program. Tiangong-2 is the space station. -Loned (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not quite right. Both Tiangong-1 and 2 are space labs prototypes developed from the Tianzhou hull. The third Tiangong, will be the modular space station. Tiangong-2 will not have modules. They might (but I don't believe it) have a second port for the Tianzhou docking. — Baldusi (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, Baldusi. I'm looking forward to the launch of Tiangong-2 this October. Loned (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under a misapprehension that its a launch and forget operation Loned, UN rules on Space require the ability to deorbit a craft to be maintained, it has to be able to control its re-entry point or its an uncontrolled re-entry. You also seem to have neglected that CNSA reported that both communication had been terminated AND the ability to communicate had been lost. Another story on it, its now spinning apparently. http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/chinas-tiangong-1-space-station-might-falling-back-to-earth-2910732/
 * Well, here is the thing I talked about. Like in your post, Indian Express quoted the Space Engineering Office which is the one and only source for the information from Tiangong Program. And they only spoke once prior to Tiangong-2 on March 21, 2016. The original quote is "All telemetry has end and data-gathering service is over", so neither "lost" nor "failed". Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2016-03/21/c_128818450.htm and http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-03/21/c_135209671.htm . It's also a little bit unfair to call the Tiangong "failure" since the Tiangong-1 mission ended in 2013, and the re-entry is really not that big of deal like you thought. From what I've heard, a small space station like Tiangong which weight only 8-ton will most likely to be burned up in the atmosphere completely. For example, the old station Salyut 7 that weight 22 tons did her re-entry uncontrolled in 1991 showing little debris on the ground as the result. But it is worth knowing the speculation from those journals, so I suggest you can add some summaries backing up with links clearing those potentially bad PR. — Loned (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Also at the press conference for the launch of Tiangong 2 yesterday an official said that 1 will make a uncontrolled re-entry sometime in the latter half of 2017 and they will monitor it to warn potential victims on the ground and other spacecraft to move out of the way. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-09/14/c_135687885.htm I therefore request you reinstate the previous version of the article before you scrubbed potentially bad PR. WatcherZero (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All spacecraft have an operational time. After that, anything goes. This demonstration is not considered a failure by any standard, except that the reentry has not been announced or calculated.  The same happened to NASA's SkyLab after it completed it service life and fell on Australia, and nobody called it a failure. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The loss of ability to control a descent is a craft experiencing a terminal failure, its now essentially a dead object in space. International laws have been tightened since Skylab and the owner is responsible for its return to Earth, but its also a pointless comparison as Skylab did perform a controlled descent though they missed the target spot. WatcherZero (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. NASA does mistakes. China does failures. Nice POV. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No you are obviously applying a racist slant, theres a world of difference between an object ordered to manoeuvre to not land on inhabited areas and an object which due to equipment failure is out of control. Applying your argument and out of control plane is not a failing, its just accomplished its mission to take off and so anything goes with regards to coming back down again. WatcherZero (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - This seems like a semantics debate (the kind of debate we love here on WP). I think we should stick with "loss of control" or "lost control" verbiage rather than failure. Seems closer to the sources. NickCT (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello. Fact: loss of telemetry (tracking and communication); implied: loss of control. The module operated well beyond its service design, not a speculation. Unable to dispose if safely may or may not be considered a "failure of disposal" but not a failure of the primary mission. I think this issue is now clear and has no POV. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Death on Earth
Can the debris kill a human, when it crahes on earth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.100.196.168 (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "While NASA and other space agencies say it’s very hard to compute the overall risk to any individual, it’s been estimated that the odds that you, personally, will be hit by a specific piece of debris are about 1 in several trillion. But numerically, the chance that one person anywhere in the world might be struck by a any piece of space debris comes out to a chance of 1-in-3,200, said Nick Johnson, chief scientist with NASA’s Orbital Debris during a media teleconference in 2011 when the 6-ton UARS satellite was about to make an uncontrolled reentry." - Loned (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash
Where will it crash and when? Can it be denied that the station will crash into a city? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.217.193 (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterday southern coastal part of Sri Lanka experienced some light source with sound on sky, traveled and fallen to sea. it that this crash we expected in this time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarsrilanka (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiangong-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111080248/http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/278442/20120109/expert-u-s-secret-space-plane-spying.htm to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/278442/20120109/expert-u-s-secret-space-plane-spying.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tiangong-1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110071948/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2011-11/07/c_131233226.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/video/2011-11/07/c_131233226.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925013537/http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/217730/20110921/china-space-station-test-launch-tiangong-1.htm to http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/217730/20110921/china-space-station-test-launch-tiangong-1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024195807/http://trans.wenweipo.com/gb/paper.wenweipo.com/2011/07/09/YO1107090008.htm to http://trans.wenweipo.com/gb/paper.wenweipo.com/2011/07/09/YO1107090008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Odds
What are the actual odds of killing ANY human being? That is more meaningful than the odds for any person to be killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.66.82 (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources tend to quote odds for an individual person, not all people. If you calculated how many people live in the high-risk bands you could probably get a good idea of the answer, but it wouldn't be appropriate to add to the article because it would essentially be original research. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK


 * or is it, now that it is probable for April 1st the longest April fools day joke ever?121.99.108.78 (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Picture of re-entry removed.


I'm removing the picture because in my view it is totaly contradicting the cited source. The re-entry is NOT most likly at the read area as discribed, in fact it is nearly impossible there. See the real picture at http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2018/03/26/tiangong-1-frequently-asked-questions-2/ (which is the link in the ref). More precise: http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/files/2018/01/esa_esoc_tiangong1_risk_map_jan2018-1024x375.png --Fano (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad. I confused the population density on the left with the likelihood on the right. Sorry. --Fano (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Section "Future development" needs overhaul
The section entitled "Future development" makes no sense. It opens with a link to the "Main article" Tiangong-2 but it is not mentioned at all in the text. Instead, it deals with a supply cargo ship (Tianzhou (spacecraft)) for a totally different space station: China's large modular space station. Those familiar with this program, please clean it up. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reentry
I don't see how that could be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but I admit it's breaking news. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The space lab has re-entered the atmosphere above the South Pacific 'mostly' destroyed.
 * Astronomer Jonathan McDowell cites U.S. Strategic Command as confirming the Chinese space lab's atmospheric reentry at 5:15 P.M. (PST)


 * Please don't say it "crashed" into the Pacific until pieces of debris actually hit the ocean's surface. Reports actually say that the space lab "reentered" the earth's atmosphere. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Popular Culture
Tiangong-1 is featured in the movie Gravity, I'm pretty sure this info used to be in the article... http://gravitymovie.wikia.com/wiki/Tiangong_Station 70.190.181.241 (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 13:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the name "Tiangong" being mentioned in the film, just "Chinese space station". If it was, it certainly wouldn't have meant "Tiangong-1", which was originally planned to be deorbited in 2013 (the year Gravity came out). Tiangong-1 was always designed to be a technology demonstrator leading up to a full-on space station, not a multi-module station as shown in the film. The film was probably referring to Chinese large modular space station, the culmination of the Tiangong program. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|TALK


 * Though the station is supposed to be "Tiangong" IIRC; the configuration of the station is the once CNSA mooted Tiangong-4/Large-Space-Station (ie. Mir-sized) So AFAIK it isn't Tiangong-1, it is equivalent to the now projected Tiangong-3 with foreign participation that is currently being mooted. (The fuzzy earlier timeline had separate TG3 and large-station; but under that timeline, TG2 was not supposed to be a copy of TG1 (it was to be a prototype for the subsidiary modules attached to the large station's core), whereas in reality, TG2 is a copy of TG1 (the prototype of the cargo module Tianzhou (TZ))). So no, AFAIK it isn't the same station as TG1 -- 70.51.203.56 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)