Template talk:Crewed ISS flights

Manned
I dont like the use of Manned, seems male chauvinistic to me, should be Human ISS flight.Hektor 03:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Manned doesn't imply male. Richard Taylor 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of RM'ing the Human Spaceflight articles. It's political correctness gone mad. Manned is the more used term. -- GW_Simulations |User Page 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bolded items
Why are some items (Soyuz and all future flights) in bold? Rillian 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Soyuz ones, as for FF's, I did all of those, and I probably just copied a Soyuz... -- GW_Simulations |User Page 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I originally bolded the Soyuz ones just so you could see at a glance which missions were soyuz and which were space shuttles.. without something they kinda blend together; i'd prefer some visual difference, like bolding, or colour, but i'm not fussy. Mlm42 18:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sequence of future flights as per Expeditions
I've taken the liberty of reordering the future STS and Soyuz flights so as to conform to the various expedition schedules listed elsewhere here, in particular Expedition 17, Expedition 18, Expedition 19 and Expedition 20. All subject to change, of course, but it would seem as STS flights are adjusted here and there, the presumption should be that these schedules are more or less intact. The dates on some of the individual flights are clearly wrong, or at least not sourced. Canada Jack (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the sequence of flights to match actual launch dates. While older flights are in order of launch, the past several years when an shuttle launch went after a soyuz launch and the shuttle subsequently landed, the shuttle would quite naturally be placed as a "past" launch while the soyuz flight would be "current." And that sequence, I realized, would be kept once the soyuz landed. We should be either listing flights by date of launch or by date of landing, but not both. Seems logical to go by launch sequence as that is the near-universal practice here and elsewhere. So, in the future the long-lasting soyuz missions once they are over should be placed in the proper sequence, i.e. ahead of shuttle launches which followed the soyuz launch. Canada Jack (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orion flights
Nasa plans to fly manned Orion flights to the ISS. And Nasa has published future planned flights. Therefore, despite these flights not yet appearing on Nasa's launch manifest, they should appear here, unless Nasa changes the program or cancels it. Canada Jack (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To date, the ISS mission is scheduled until early 2011. Orion missions - to date no more than the desire of developers of Orion, but by no means official NASA plans for astronauts flights to ISS--SeNeKa (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * SeNeKa, this is far from simply "the desire of developers of Orion," Nasa is being funded for Constellation/Orion, (as this link explicitly states) tests are now being conducted , and details of planned launches have been published. And it's more than a pipe dream, as if Nasa does not get continued funding for this project, they will literally have to rely on the Russians if they want to get people into space and to the space station which they largely built. Indeed, they will rely on the Russians once the last shuttle goes up (by September 2010) until this program bears fruit and delivers a crew (September 2014, assuming no technical or funding delays). The Orion flights therefore warrant inclusion as a) Nasa has published planned flight dates, b) the program is funded and operational (though in its early stages) and c) for political reasons it is hard to imagine the program being abandoned as it will close off guaranteed American access to space. While c) is an opinion which would not warrant inclusion of the flights to the template, a) and b) are not. Canada Jack (talk)


 * It plans to developers of Orion, but no official plans for space missions to the ISS. Official plans approved prior to the ISS Expedition 29 in 2011--SeNeKa (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What about just having a single link: "Orion flights" pointing to the general Orion article, or a "List of planned Orion flights" article instead ? Understandable, consistent, not messy, and would contain as much useful information as the "mission" articles at the moment. As a matter of fact, those are SO far into the future, i've been thinking about merge/redirecting them into a list anyways. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems Senaka wants to make a distinction here about what he defines as "planned". There is a semantic nuance here which he doesn't seem to appreciate, but I nevertheless see his point. So how about this, if we make the distinction here between "scheduled" flights and "proposed" flights, that might be a bit better. Or, if the "proposed" Orion flights as I have it are too "messy," then take them off, but don't forget to clean up the Orion pages if that is to happen. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)