Jump to content

Talk:International Space Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.17.181.251 (talk) at 00:26, 11 June 2024 (Repairs 2024: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleInternational Space Station is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2010.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 28, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
July 15, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 12, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
December 1, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 27, 2004.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 2, 2004, November 2, 2005, November 2, 2006, November 2, 2007, November 2, 2008, November 2, 2009, November 2, 2010, and November 20, 2013.
Current status: Former featured article


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ADD AN IMAGE

International Space Station Red Digital Cinema ISS-56 Ricky Arnold films with a Helium 8K camera in 2018

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)[reply]

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)[reply]