Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Space stations working group/Archive 1

Topic proposals
I have listed some ideas for content that could be included in the featured topics on the working group page. -- G W … 12:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

DOS vs. Almaz vs. Salyut program
It appears we have an article (Salyut program) covering the Almaz stations as well as the DOS stations, and we also have an article dedicated to the Almaz stations, and GW has a userspace article on the DOS stations; then the only space station not covered by "Salyut program" seems to be Skylab! To avoid duplication, and reduce confusion, the best solution may be to make Salyut program a disambiguation page. My understanding is that stations like Salyut 3 weren't really part of "the Salyut program" anyway, since they were military design, funded, etc. So including them under the "Salyut program" may give the false impression to the reader that the Almaz and DOS stations were closely related, or at least that they were both part of some unified "program" - which they were not.

So maybe the best thing is to split content between the three articles: Almaz, DOS (spacecraft), and Space station. Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to leave a general article at Salyut to cover the name and the administrative aspects, but I'm happy to do away with it if it proves unnecessary. I'll try and get the DOS article finished, then we can see how things work with three articles, and do away with Salyut if necessary. -- G W … 23:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Mlm42 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd thoroughly agree with splitting the Almaz parts of the Salyut programme article into the Almaz article, but I'd tend to suggest we retain it; we have an International Space Station programme article, after all. Colds7ream (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It just strikes me that Salyut program and DOS (spacecraft) would have too much duplication. Maybe a "Salyut program" section within the DOS (spacecraft) article would make sense? Or vice versa - a "DOS spacecraft" section within the Salyut program article? Mlm42 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it a while, I'd support the suggestion of having a 'Salyut programme' section in DOS (spacecraft); much like Skylab program, we could then simply redirect that article to DOS (and the same for Mir programme to Mir)? That does, however, leave open the question about what to do with Almaz and OPS (spacecraft)... Colds7ream (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal with Polyus?
I noticed in List of space stations, the spacecraft Polyus has been commented out.. after scanning this article written by Ed Grondine (who calls himself a "veteran space journalist"), there is the claim that "It failed to reach orbit, but [had it] succeeded, it would have been the core module of a new Mir-2 space station." If this claim were true, then we should include it in the list.

But then our article Mir-2 describes Polyus as a prototype.. and indeed this website describes it as "experimental", and partially made from parts of Mir-2. Does anyone have more information about whether Polyus "would have been the core of a new Mir-2 space station"? Mlm42 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It did have Mir-2 painted on the side. -- G W … 21:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an photograph on this page which shows the marking quite clearly. The only issue I have is that it would not make sense to replace Mir so soon after it's launch, especially given that Polyus was launched less than two months after Kvant-1. My guess (and it is just that, so we can't use it unless we can find a source) is that Mir-2 would have been a cover designation, in much the same way the three Almaz stations were given Salyut designations to hide the military programme. -- G W … 23:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see.. hmm.. yes, it probably deserves a mention in the Space station article, then; even though officially it wasn't going to be a space station, (and in reality probably wasn't going to be one either) we have a source claiming it was going to be one. Maybe adding: "Ed Grondine, a space journalist, has speculated that if the Polyus spacecraft succussfully reached orbit, it would have become the core module for another Soviet space station.[reference] But official sources do not indicate Polyus was ever intended for manned spaceflight.[reference]" Or something along those lines. Mlm42 (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the fabulously unreferenced Mir-2, it would have been the core of the new station, but then again we know that, later at least, the core would have been DOS-8. Colds7ream (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is probably the result of a misunderstanding. As Mlm42 notes, Polyus was made from parts that would have gone onto serve as the core of Mir-2.  I can't say I've ever seen any indication that Polyus itself was intended to be part of Mir-2, which seems rather strange given that it would conflict with its use as a civilian outpost making it a military target!  I seem to remember reading something a while ago that stated the Mir-2 painted on the side was indeed a ruse to cover its real purpose but unfortunately I couldn't say where I saw it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the article you cited was written by Mark Wade. He made use of materials which I pointed out to him. I never suggested to Mark or anyone that Polyus would have been the core or Mir 2, simply that Polyus used a Mir 2 type core. Is this clear?

As far as the Mir 2 design goes, it had some very interesting features which will undoubtedly come into use in future space station designs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.56.124 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing for me to learn sometimes what I have written; other times it is amazing to hear my own words quoted back to me by someone else as being their original research.

Just to clear this up, I sent Wade two articles, one on Mir 2, the other on Polyus. My analysis of the Mir 2 design was done at about the same time the astronauts were working on the "can" ISS proposal. The original image was spotted by the Air et Cosmos team at the IAF in India in the late 1980's, headed by the late master Soviet space analyst Albert DuCroq.

One thing that irritates me is Wade persists in showing Mir 2 horizontally, as he guesses that that attitude would reduce micro-atmosphere friction, while the attitude was most likely vertical, with the solar array turned 90 degrees to direction of flight so as to reduce friction.

Polyus was an orbital weapons platform to counter SDI, built from components udcer development for other programs. It was instantly stopped by Gorbachev, who considered it as something like an orbiting Chernobyl. Had he allowed it to continue, it would havbe used "Mir 2" as a cover name.

Is this clear enough for you?

Ed Grondine Veteran Space Journalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.56.124 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for claiming those words were yours; the website appeared to imply they were. Anyway, thanks for your comments. The question I was trying to determine was this: "Had Polyus been successful, would it have become part of a space station"? It appears the answer to this question is no.. and although Made Wade's Polyus webpage speculates that the answer may have been yes, this may have been a misinterpretation - possibly of one of the articles you sent him. Thanks for the clarification; I think it's safe to keep Polyus out of the space station article. Mlm42 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for clearing that up. IMO, Polyus needs to be remembered for what it was, a counter measure to Reagan's "Star Wars" efforts. The design for Mir 2 proper also needs to be remembered, as it represents what the Soviet designers considered the best station design architecture at that time. How you here at wikipedia want to handle that is up to you. Good luck. Ed Grondine, Veteran Space Journalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.157 (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

When is a space station a space station? (for purposes of this working group)
Hi folks. I'd like to see if we might get a consensus on whether or not proposed/under-development/being-built-on-terra-firma space stations get represented here, and by what criteria? Would the unflown ISS get coverage today were it's components merely on the drawing board? Or when funding was committed? Or when Terran construction began? Or when?

Specifically, there are several commercial space stations (both large and small) underway (see here, here, or here; or take a look at the template editors have constructed for more). I'm sure some of these could be merely PowerPoint presentations to see if they could sell it if they built it. However, some of these have funding, capital ground facilities and ground production underway, and launches scheduled. My question is: When ought we put them "on the map" for purposes of this project, that is, on the Space Stations Working Group Project page? (Full disclosure: I created the articles on two of these commercial space stations, and have added significant content to both of those articles after article creation.)  Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of creating a featured topic, we should probably leave future stations out. But if you want to tag the talk pages as being in the space stations working group, then I see no problem with that. Mlm42 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would honestly like to see as many proposals as possible. Proposals are just as important and relevant as operational hardware. While they wouldn't easily reach featured article status, if we were to limit the scope for the project to articles that could only easily reach featured article status, it would be rather limited in scope. As always (in my opinion), the more information the better. --Xession (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Mlm - add any and all stations to the group's scope, but keep past and current ones for the topics. Colds7ream (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like the consensus is to include all of them, including "proposals" and "under development" along with "built-and-on-orbit", "de-orbited" and "proposed but never built." That works for me.  Of course, the basic criteria would be still be notability and verifiably sourced or it should not exist in Wikipedia at all.  So it would seem that if it has an article and is in Category:Space stations, then it should be under the purview of this group.  Do I have this right?  Is that our consensus? N2e (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup; Generally I think defining scope by using the category tree is often a good idea. Mlm42 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's another that I just wondered about; do Spacelab and Spacehab (don't know much about the latter) count as spacestations? It was temporary, but used the same. --Xession (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say that they're probably not space stations; they're simply extra components to the Space Shuttle. Colds7ream (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposing Bigelow Commercial Space Station on the "Proposed featured topics" list
I am proposing that we include the Bigelow Commercial Space Station on the Proposed featured topics list on the Project page. Rationale: it is under development, has funding, and has now scheduled several Atlas V launches for the 2014/2015 timeframe to get the initial complex into space. It therefore seems, to my eye which could be missing something on other space station plans, to be the next multiple-module space station that is in process of being built. This is important. I've added it to the list, but would very much like to have consensus on that idea (else, I would remove it). Full disclosure: I created the Bigelow CSS article and have made a substantial number of the edits since. Would love to have other editors with space station interest join in to improving that article, or reassess it when the time comes that it meets the C-level criteria. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Mlm42's comment (in prior section, and in next section below)—which I agree with—I am withdrawing the proposal for the two "under construction" space stations (Chinese and Bigelow) to be on the "proposed featured" list. I will remove them from the Project page list.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese space station update
Leonard David of space.com just wrote an overview article on the Chinese space station program. I have made a first-pass update of the Project 921-2 article (which is the name of the Wikipedia article that covers China's space station) based on the information in the space.com article. More eyes, on the Project 921 article, and on the Chinese program in general (one and the same with Project 921-2, apparently), would be very welcome. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have added Project 921-2 to the proposed featured topics list on the project page. Any objections?  N2e (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The more articles in a topic, the harder it is to get it featured.. and as I mentioned above, I think we should keep proposed stations out - since I think it's unlikely they can be featured articles before they've been launched. But anyway, if someone wants to improve the articles on the proposed stations, then Wikipedia will be better for it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. I had missed your prior comment in the context of the two "proposed featured" sections I had added to this Talk page.  I see your point.  And I agree with your point:  the "proposed" stations cannot easily become "featured articles".  But I do think that those two stations (the Chinese national and the Bigelow Commercial) ought to receive more attention from this working group.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved both the Chinese station and the Bigelow station out of the "proposed featured" list, and just listed them as high-importance articles that ought to be matters of some import to this working group. N2e (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous article title...
Has anyone else noticed that we've now an article that glories in the name Electrical system of the United States Orbital Segment of the International Space Station? Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous? :-S SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I dealt with it. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Group activity?
Hi everyone, just a quick enquiry as to whether anyone is still planning on making use of this working group? If so, may I suggest we pay it a bit more attention, or, if not, that it be merged back into the main project? Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I remain interested. I will try to get over here more regularly, and monitor the Discussion page for suggested activities/questions.  N2e (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I haven't been very article on Wikipedia lately; but when I do become active again (whenever that will be..), I was planning on making this a high priority.. Mlm42 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When might the Space stations working group become vital
There has been little activity in this working group lately, probably for many reasons, even with the recent launch of the Chinese Tiangong 1 and plans for a manned docking later this year and a short-term human stay on board. There is work to be done, but it is not clear that Wikipedia volunteers particularly want to do very much of it at present.

In my view, the Space stations working group will pick up again and become vital when there eventually arises real economic options for where space station manufacturing and research can be carried out. Sadly, this is unlikely in the near term, where every extant space station is some kind of proxy of national pride and virility, and operated by government bureaus. With competition, we may see such options exist in future years. We can only hope. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Last call for activity
Looks like 5 years ago we tried to get this going, and it did not work out. Do you guys think we should keep it up? I am working to clean up the project so the active parts remain, that way people can see a more active Wikiproject to join. Kees08 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd say this working group need not be kept separate nor active at this time. Main WikiProject is sufficient.
 * In some imagined future, when multiple stations are actively in production or flying, then that might be a time to revive it. N2e (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reignition?
Hey User:Soumya-8974. I saw your note on the WikiProject Spaceflight discussion board. What are you thinking are the space station articles to be worked on now? N2e (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought there are several topics directly related to space stations (see Category:Space stations working group articles). Therefore, a working group is necessary to maintain them. Since I found a semi-active working group, I decided to revive this group, add more topics directly related to space stations, and recruit new members from WikiProject Spaceflight. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Side note, you said on your last post of this working group that it would be revived in the distant future when multiple stations will orbit in the solar system. Well, I found that it does not have to. We already have many topics related to space stations, with only a handful of crewed space stations currently flying or once flew on the Earth. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow. I looked at that list (Category:Space stations working group articles) and it seems to have several hundred articles connected to it. Certainly broader than my head was thinking about when I think of  "space stations".  I tend to think of the stations (to date, just Mir, ISS and Tiangong) and arguably a few of the demos that the two governments (US and Soviets) did to test concepts for short periods prior to that like Skylab.  So my scope is a bit narrower; but maybe if new folks join the project, they will be interested in a broader scope.  N2e (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)