Talk:International Space Station
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about use of British vs American English. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic. Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
The article contains orbital elements which are automatically updated by a bot. Updates usually occur on alternate Saturdays. For more details, please see Template:Orbit. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Good article
I am posting because my edit was reverted by Thebogthefrenzythesencuy. My understanding is that this is a good article based on this review in 2008. Has it been delisted in the mean time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article got promoted to FA status in 2010, and got demoted in 2011. I don't see a GA nomination page for it, so that's why I reverted your edit. Hope this helps. Thebogthefrenzythesencuy (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- So if it gets demoted from FA, then it then becomes GA again, no? Would you please restore the correct rating on the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The article is clearly of GA quality as of now, there is no logical reason it would be a C-class article and not a GA-class article. WalkingWiki686 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I propose we re-evaluate it against the WP:BCLASS criteria. (sdsds - talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Improving Lede Section
This discussion relates to recent good faith edits to improve the lede section of the article, hoping to encourage further revisions that help the article return to good article status. (sdsds - talk) 21:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Emphasis on size related to method of assembly
The "largest ever" assertion is correct. It warrants the newly added link to Assembly of the International Space Station. The sentence ordering could likely be improved to bring these into closer proximity. (sdsds - talk) 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Space agencies both assembled and operate ISS
The listed space agencies (and their contractors) did assemble ISS, and continue to operate it. The lede would be improved by somehow concisely indicating that. (sdsds - talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
USOS and ROS
The change to describing these as being "operational" rather than "functional" distinctions is correct (they have quite similar functions) and details of how the segments are operated (i.e. mention of Mission Control Centers in Houston and Moscow) would improve the article. (sdsds - talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
ISS National Lab
The ISS National Lab is not part of NASA, and yet it is responsible for much of the research activity in the USOS. The article could be improved by incorporating that into the lede section. (sdsds - talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Blind reverting
Apologies to Seasider53 for the blind reverting, unintentionally occurring during overlapped edits. Thanks for your article improvements! (sdsds - talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Orbital Mass - Verifiable data
There are a few estimates of the ISS mass. NASA's current page (https://www.nasa.gov/reference/international-space-station/) says its over 400,000kg and ESA at completion says it will be about 450,000kg these are only estimates. Still the best data we have is (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/np-2015-05-022-jsc-iss-guide-2015-update-111015-508c.pdf) which states 419,725 kilograms. Other than the new ROSA panels at a mass of 325 kg each, does anyone have a better estimate of its mass. The ESA page (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ISS_International_Space_Station) appears to be a very rough estimate and is inconsistent with NASA's numbers. (User:Zygerth 17 March 2024.) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to keep the heaviest objects page using reliable data. Does anyone have a better estimate of the ISS on orbit mass? (with or without docked vehicles as long as its clarified) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Deorbit Vehicle
With deorbit of the station on the horizon, a new article should be created about the deorbit vehicle NASA plans to develop, its still in the funding phase but enough information does exist currently 73.210.30.217 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
ADD AN IMAGE
Delete the "Proposed Components" Subsection
This unsourced subsection only talks about two concept ideas, one (Nautilus-X) seems to have been cancelled back in 2011, and the other (Nanoracks "Independence-1") doesn't have a clear connection to the ISS as a future module, and from a quick Google search ("Independence-1 nanoracks"), hasn't had any news since 2018. Do these concepts and their subsection still have a place in this already bloated article then? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Repairs 2024
According to ArsTechnica, there's a been a continuing air leak "NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, still have not solved a long-running and worsening problem with leaks on the International Space Station. The microscopic structural cracks are located inside the small PrK module on the Russian segment of the space station, which lies between a Progress spacecraft airlock and the Zvezda module. After the leak rate doubled early this year during a two-week period, the Russians experimented with keeping the hatch leading to the PrK module closed intermittently and performed other investigations. But none of these measures taken during the spring worked. ... However, there appears to be rising concern in the ISS program at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The space agency often uses a 5x5 "risk matrix" to classify the likelihood and consequence of risks to spaceflight activities, and the Russian leaks are now classified as a "5" both in terms of high likelihood and high consequence." Published Jun 7, 2024. Apparently the definition of 5 in terms of probability is 1 in 10 chance. This may be nothing, but given the cause is unknown AND the leak suddenly doubled this year, it should be mentioned. I couldn't find the PrL module on the exploded 2022 diagram, nor the "Progress spacecraft airlock".98.17.181.251 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- B-Class spaceflight articles
- Top-importance spaceflight articles
- Space stations working group articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- B-Class Europe articles
- High-importance Europe articles
- B-Class ESA articles
- Top-importance ESA articles
- ESA task force articles
- WikiProject Europe articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (technology and engineering) articles
- Technology and engineering in Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (science and education) articles
- Science and education in Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- B-Class Science Policy articles
- High-importance Science Policy articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Spoken Wikipedia requests
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report