→If it isn't broke..: idea |
|||
Line 750: | Line 750: | ||
:::::... Okay. I appear to be causing you frustration. I would like to improve this article as well.. is your main concern that the lead doesn't say anything about other space stations? [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
:::::... Okay. I appear to be causing you frustration. I would like to improve this article as well.. is your main concern that the lead doesn't say anything about other space stations? [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
Also, what reliable source states that the ISS is the 11th space station? Because if we don't have a source that says that, then it shouldn't be in the article (and ''definitely'' shouldn't be in the lead). Although the "Origins" section mentions the other stations, the intro doesn't link to any of them.. so if a change were to be made, the most natural place seems to be the insertion of a single sentence in the second paragraph. But I'm not sure what such a sentence should say.. perhaps Penyulap has a suggestion? [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English. == |
== ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English. == |
Revision as of 20:43, 28 June 2011
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
|
Talk:International Space Station/Archivebox
Costs
Does anyone want to find out the cost of the ISS? the existing refs are incomplete and outdated at best. Possibly where accurate info for a particular partner can be found, it can be mentioned it's that partners cost... The ESA ref has nothing going for it, except being on the ESA page, it doesn't state anything of who did the estimate or how they arrived at the figures they did.Penyulap talk 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- That will be very hard to find out. At least in my opinion it will be. All the agencies involved have kept prices kinda secret and hidden. Some costs are known, but there is not really one $$$ figure out there. It ranges widely, depending on who it is.--NavyBlue84 03:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- I quite agree with that, possibly we can find references, quoting people who are not ourselves, saying as much. Rather than leaving inaccurate information on the page, just a reference to one or two officials stating that costs are difficult to quantify or some such, and something to suggest why. It can't help people looking for accurate information to come to wiki and think they have found it when that's not the case. Or at least an overview of costs explaining the problem, followed by country by country expenditure if available.Penyulap talk 23:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- On cost related research, regarding why it costs so little in Russia, and so much in America, an obscure forum user remarks...
- In Russia, Budget stretches YOU!! however it doesn't meet wiki standards so the smiles can stay in discussion, well, I thought it was funny anyhow ....Penyulap talk 02:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- It seems that we will never know... muwahahahaha... --U5K0 (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Also the The USA tuday said the cost is $100 billion. I do think, though that they got it form wikipedia and we all know how reliable that is :P --U5K0 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed ! It's important to look for the most accurate information, although, I think more of people who want to learn about this, like people who take time to stare into the sky, rather than the media, who pretty much ignore factual information. Collecting each countries separate budget spending must be possible however. This is certainly not impossible. Penyulap talk 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- U5K0, I used the word 'modules' rather than segments, as it's the fashion, I thought it would be too verbose saying 'across two pressurized and one unpressurized module or similar words, so I just went with '3 mods' I won't undo it myself though, it means the same thing.Penyulap talk 09:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Canada's spending on space is about $400M this year, and looking at their goals, I can't help but think I have a few old computers here, and if they give me the $400M I'll install Ubuntu and connect them to the internet, they can totally overshoot their stated goals in about 25 minutes I expect. I'm sorry to all my canadian friends who are reading this, but can't help thinking they'd be like 'yeah, that's true'. Anyhow, they have an impeccable free health care system.Penyulap talk 05:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
What about something like this....
Country | Agency | Budget (USD) |
---|---|---|
USA | NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) | $19,000 million[1] |
ESA | ESA (European Space Agency) | $5,430 million (2011)[2] |
RUS | ROSCOSMOS (Russian Federal Space Agency) | $3,800 million (2011)[3] |
JPN | JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) | $2,460 million[4] |
CAN | CSA (Canadian Space Agency) | $300 million[5] |
ISS partners | All space agencies annual budgets | approx $1.77 [citation needed] |
Penyulap talk 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
it has the total budgets for all agencies, I think with some asking about, we might get some help from the same people who made the original table I cut up from this page List of space agencies and maybe some brief little pie-charts like in the utilization section for USOS hardware allocation, to show modules/segments total by agency, rockets and/or payload kg's of supplies per agency, that sort of thing, to explain the contributions from different agencies.Penyulap talk 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to state that I support MLM42's removal of text relating to the 'most expensive object', but would reconsider if a reference can be found that has a well thought out estimated cost of the telephone. Two different refs is cool, like "the ISS is the most expensive object at X dollars [1] exceeding the Telephone which cost Y dollars [2]." I don't know either cost, but I bet the devil my head the telephone to date comes out on top. Penyulap talk 20:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Change of structure, new material. Call for support, or objection
Well this is a snapshot of the current state of the Costs section
Costs
The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 160 billion dollars.[28] ESA, the one agency which actually presents potential overall costs, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over 30 years.[27] A precise cost estimate for the ISS is unclear, as it is difficult to determine which costs should be attributed to the ISS program, or how the Russian contribution should be measured.[28]
On March 14, 2000 President Bill Clinton signed the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (INA), which created a problem for NASA in its financial dealings with the Russian space agency. Section 6 of the Act "prohibits the U.S. Government from making payments in connection with the ISS to the Russian space agency, organizations or entities under its control, or any other element of the Russian government, after January 1, 1999, unless the President makes a determination that Russia's policy is to oppose proliferation to Iran, that Russia is demonstrating a sustained commitment to seek out and prevent the transfer of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile systems to Iran, and that neither the Russian space agency nor any entity reporting to it has made such transfers for at least one year prior to such determination." [208] Section 6 incorporated a "crew safety exception" which was intended to prevent "imminent loss of life" and also allowed for payments involving Russia's Service Module and docking hardware that was already in process when the Act was being debated. At an October 12, 2000 House International Relations Committee hearing, NASA was criticized for its broad interpretation of the word “imminent” in the crew safety exception.[209] In 2006 Russia was no longer obligated to provide transportation of American astronauts aboard the Soyuz spacecraft without payment. With this deadline looming, in 2005 Congress amended the INA to exempt Soyuz flights from the Section 6 ban. The exemption was renewed in 2008 and is in effect through 2016. [210]
I think this is a poor excuse for us all not to do any work, the costs must be out there somewhere and I'd like everyone's, anyone's help in finding them. Iran stuff is politics that belongs elsewhere, it doesn't help anyone find out how much the space station costs. The first paragraph has useful information which will probably be superseded by up to date info in the new section. A draft of the new section will probably be more useful to people trying to get an idea of costs, so I'll go straight ahead with it, replacing what is there now. References will be missing for some of the information initially, because some of it is in foreign languages, and I'd love any help fixing refs anyone would like to give. Please don't give DEconstructive assistance (like deleting sections with click click click) please be constructive by finding one agency, any agency, and finding their costs.Penyulap talk 04:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is what I am adding now,
The cost estimates for the ISS range from 35 billion to 160 billion dollars.[6] ESA, estimates €100 billion for the entire station over 30 years.[7]
The NASA budget for 2007 estimates costs for the ISS (excluding shuttle costs) at $US25.6 billion for the years 1994 to 2005. NASA's annual contribution increase from 2010 to $US2.3 billion and is likely to remain at that level until 2017.
Based on costs incurred plus a projected $2.5 Billion per year from 2011-2017, NASA spending since 1993 not including shuttle spending comes to $US53 Billion. An additional 33 Shuttle assembly and supply flights equates to $35 Billion. With addition costs from development of the freedom station project precursor, NASA's contribution comes to approximately $US100 Billion.
ESA spending on a 30-year projected station lifespan is €8 billion. Consisting of Columbus development €1 Billion. ATV's First launch and development €1.35 Billion, subsequent launches €875 Million X 4 scheduled, Ariane-5 launch costs of €125 million each. ATV total costs €2.85 Billion.
JAXA Kibo $2.8 Billion, plus operating costs 350-400 Million annually. HTV development 68 billion yen, Plus HTV launch costs of about ¥ 250 billion.
Total costs for Kibo until 2010 ¥7,100 billion, consisting of development approximately ¥ 250 billion, Kibo laboratory equipment development cost about ¥450 billion, approximately ¥2,360 billion in costs and expenses of shuttle launches. Astronaut training, ground facilities, experiment-related expenses approximately 110 billion yen.
JAXA Annual costs since 2011 at about 400 billion yen, consisting of the operating costs (such as maintenance, astronaut training) about 90 billion yen, (experiment-related costs), about 40 billion yen, and HTV launches.
RSA costs are difficult to determine as substantial development costs of the Robotic Progress Cargoships, Manned/Robotic Soyuz Spacecraft, and Proton Rockets used for module launches, are spread across previous Soviet rocket programs. Cost of development for Module design such as DOS base blocks, life support, docking systems etc are spread across the budgets of the Salmat, Almaz, and MIR I and MIR II programs. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated in Jan 2011 that the government will spend 115 billion rubles ($3.8 bln) on national space programs in 2011, however this includes the entire space program which will launch a spacecraft on average once per week during 2011.
CSA spending over the last 20 years is estimated at $CA1.4 Billion. Including development of the Canadarm2 and SPDM.
It is rough, but please state if you support further editing and protection against widespread deletion, or object to it's inclusion and want it returned to the previous version. Please edit below this text to state support or objection. Penyulap talk 07:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think U5K0 was right on when he said "Also the The USA tuday said the cost is $100 billion. I do think, though that they got it form wikipedia and we all know how reliable that is :P" plus, that reference to $100 billion has so got to DIE DIE DIE!!! when the first kid with a calculator comes along. (I broke mine trying to work out if the stated mass was tare weights of the modules. at launch, or thats my excuse anyway) Penyulap talk 07:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
New section exploration, additional material.
I've split the Purpose section into Science and exploration subsections. The material looks very different from one section to the other, like, exploration seems to be all about mission statements and the like rather than science ... I guess there is no getting around it, obviously. It just looks weird to me, and the mention of china is freaking me out too. Anyhow please comment.
(existing lead-in) The ISS provides a location in the relative safety of Low Earth Orbit to test spacecraft systems that will be required for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars. This provides experience in the maintenance, repair, and replacement of systems on-orbit, which will be essential in operating spacecraft further from Earth. Mission risks are reduced, and the capabilities of interplanetary spacecraft are advanced.[8]
ESA states 'Human exploration of our Solar System is an important focus for ESA... The ISS is essential for answering questions concerning the possible impact of weightlessness, radiation and other space-specific factors, other aspects such as the effect of long-term isolation and confinement can be more appropriately addressed via ground-based simulations'[9].
NASA chief Charlie Bolden stated in Feb 2011 "Any mission to Mars is likely to be a global effort"[10]. Currently the space agencies of Europe, Russia and China are carrying out the ground-based preparations in the Mars500 project which complement the ISS-based preparations for a manned mission to Mars[11]. China is not an ISS Partner, and no chinese national has been aboard. China has it's own Space station[12], due for launch in 2011, and has officially initiated its program for a modular station[13]. China is willing to cooperate further with other countries on manned exploration[14].Penyulap talk 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The passage starts with the Original purpose in relation to exploration, which is far outdated now, but is included as the starting point of the story. 'A long time ago...' it has to be left in the past tense, to avoid misunderstanding. It's not the current purpose of the station to act as a base for interplanetary manned missions and so forth. All plans for that I know of are beyond the (proposed 2028) end-of-mission date.
The story moves onto the current purpose in regards to exploration, and then in the last sentences, the future purpose or possibilities.
Please state support or concerns with this approach. Penyulap talk 08:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Safety / new section Maintainence
The section on Safety aspects has a lot of things that just don't relate to safety of the station at all, I'd like to cut a lot of the information that doesn't belong there. air leak and the venting of smoke from an Elektron oxygen generator stay, these are safety issues.
Some items are simple maintainence notes like solar array trouble, which has no effect upon life support, the big arrays basically run science experiments, which would have to shut down if the arrays don't work. The implications for heating the station are minor, considering modules that can't be used anyway because of long term power failure could be closed off..
Basically these items don't belong in safety, as they pose no threat whatsoever.
- 1)Shuttle disasters and their effect upon the assembly schedule, this is already covered elsewhere as appropriate.
- 2)Reduced crew due size due to shuttle disaster, two is perfectly safe. The lack of more than two doesn't create problems.
- 3)'Failure of the computers which left the station without thruster, Elektron, Vozdukh and other environmental control system operations, the root cause of which was found to be condensation inside the electrical connectors leading to a short-circuit'
Those need research to see what is and isn't true as the original citation wouldn't have met Yahoo standards let alone Wiki standards... the corrosion is all correct, but whether it had implications is another thing, they have backups for ALL life support systems, full stop. It may have re-arranged the work schedule to bring redundant systems online and repair broken ones, but thats just work scheduling and maintainence.
- 4) 'spate of issues with 'solar arrays
The 2007 link about the solar array gives the reader an impression of danger regarding the solar array, which even the reporter admits could simply be jettisoned, and the items 'at risk' were things like assembly schedules and science capabilities. The crew member was in no danger as they'd taken appropriate measures for working on the live electrical cables, and were clearly satisfied it was a job worth doing, their mode of repair shows a well thought out plan. The reporter is just alarmist saying things like this "The spacewalk was considered particularly risky, with Parazynski venturing farther from the safety of the station than ever before. " and " just before the pair left the safety of the station's airlock. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110300227.html
- 5)More recently, problems have been noted with the station's engines and cooling. In 2009, the engines on Zvezda were issued an incorrect command which caused excessive vibrations to propagate throughout the station structure which persisted for over two minutes.[202] While no damage to the station was immediately reported, some components may have been stressed beyond their design limits. Further analysis confirmed that the station was unlikely to have suffered any structural damage, and it appears that "structures will still meet their normal lifetime capability".(..so they lived happily ever after, but some people still aren't convinced) 'Further evaluations are under way.'
The stations engines are designed to be fired without killing the entire crew and destroying the station, but maybe I'll check on that eh? sheesh.
- 6)2009 also saw damage to the S1 radiator, one of the components of the station's cooling system. The problem was first noticed in Soyuz imagery in September 2008, but was not thought to be serious.[204] The imagery showed that the surface of one sub-panel has peeled back from the underlying central structure, possibly due to micro-meteoroid or debris impact. It is also known that a Service Module thruster cover, jettisoned during an EVA in 2008, had struck the S1 radiator, but its effect, if any, has not been determined. On 15 May 2009 the damaged radiator panel's ammonia tubing was mechanically shut off from the rest of the cooling system by the computer-controlled closure of a valve. The same valve was used immediately afterwards to vent the ammonia from the damaged panel, eliminating the possibility of an ammonia leak from the cooling system via the damaged panel.
again, this doesn't address how it relates to station safety. Basically, power comes in through the solar arrays, when you add, say 50kw of electrical energy to anything inside a closed room, you get 50kw of heat energy coming out, the radiators carry away the heat from the modules, and dispel it into space as infrared radiation. So if your cooling system loses 30 percent of it's capacity, you switch off 30% of your electrical load. Or, simply switch off everything and the whole station will freeze.
So I propose deleting everything except the Fire and air leak, which are safety issues. The rest can be moved to the ISS Maintainence article, which as it's name suggests is an article so boring nobody has created it. Mir had safety issues, with the Robot spacecraft crashing into the station. That is probably a good read, but this is just making the article longer. Is there anything people think should be in there, or moved somewhere else ? Penyulap talk 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've moved and saved whatever I can from Safety into a new section called maintainence, as the material is good, and is being maintained and expanded.
- I've dumped references to the shuttle from the safety of the ISS section as they relate to safety of the shuttle, rather than safety of the ISS, the ISS wasn't hit by the shuttle for example, and is not related to the incident. It is a Major safety incident that doesn't have anything to do with ISS safety. That major incident's effect upon the ISS is outlined elsewhere in the appropriate sections, for example in the assembly section.Penyulap talk 15:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
The article called 'major incidents on the ISS' could be changed to ISS Maintainence if people wanted to do that. It would be a more appropriate title. Penyulap talk 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Which (editor) decided that sighting the station is part of its purpose?! :-S)
(this section has been edited to remove jokes at the request of RadioFan, and a general cleanup too)
(inserted) Short answer, Sightings is a subsection of Education, which is a subsection of Purpose. That's where I put it, other people have messed with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs) 11:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 11:56, 10 June 2011 Colds7ream (talk | contribs) (169,856 bytes) (Move 'sightings' out of 'purpose' too. Which damnfool idiot decided that sighting the station is part of its purpose?! :-S) (undo)
That (editor) would be me ! Good to see you back from RL.
The new sections were arranged by me with Purpose being split into subsections according to importance and material expected for them. I have no idea where they are at now, for reasons mentioned on my userpage.
I had listed the subsections in descending order of importance to the partners, and how much material would be incorporated into each category...
- 1 Purpose
- 1.1 Science
- 1.2 Exploration
- 1.3 Education
- 1.4 Cultural outreach
or with Education and cultural outreach as one section.
other possibilities for the sightings category listed below don't really grab at it or demand it's inclusion
- 2 Origins
- 3 Station structure
- 4 Life on board
- 5 Station operations
- 6 Safety aspects
- 7 Politics
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
So I put it with Sightings as a subsection of education, as a natural follow-on to the sections original text, to assist Teachers to get the kids looking up.
I don't care where you put it, it simply seemed logical when I was cleaning up the index, removed '2011' from the docking schedule as it'd need changing often, and I can't see it as helpful towards the end of each year, so the old was just copied below the new, inside the section, killed 'impacts of the IRAN nuclear proliferation treaty blah blah blah' as something boring you put in a section rather than it's title, i think it's in costs now. simplified things like 'scheduled to be launched' into minimalist headers for simplicity.. basically like that. I'd started off new sections and organized new homes for new material I'd been adding, The pope and that witch martha steward, and U2, I like U2 and the pope is just a granddad type of old guy, but what I think is irrelevant, I put that new section and new material in there for the many people who are interested in that sort of thing, for those people who come here looking. I stopped work in the middle because of problems with another user. Anyhow, new junk like the ISS in movies and books and so forth didn't have a place or section before, and thats where I was going before I stopped. Then some other editors put up expansion notes or something, which is pretty right really, I stopped mid-sentence really, and they'd found new things i think...
Anyhow, I'm quite happy to take colorful language from you as the person who cares most about this page, and anyone else who has made more contributions than I have. please feel free to switch on your skype and use even more colorful language too ! I invite you !
Penyulap talk 13:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
also, whilst I'm not going to change it myself, I'd like to point out that the 'exploration' subsection I made is like, an 'exploration of space' or 'exploration of other worlds' sort of thing, and education is a separate part of overall purpose to that, not really a part of exploration, just my thoughts. Penyulap talk 13:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Penyulap talk 14:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please consider this a formal request to rescind your decidedly unfair final comment against me; not only is it inappropriate for an article talk page, but the claim is not in any way supported by reality. --Ckatzchatspy 16:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly, I am happy to remove any comment anyone else considers unfair, however as I consider my own comments to be fair and honest, I am actually unable to tell what comment you are referring to. Please identify the comment so I am able to assist you by removing the comment you refer to. Penyulap talk 16:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The "deliberate..." portion (to the end of the line), none of which is even remotely fair or accurate. --Ckatzchatspy 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I re-read the section, and when I realized there was only one comment about you, I moved immediately to remove it as it was the only comment, and therefore must be the one you refer to. This caused an edit conflict, but I've now removed all reference to you from the previous comment, whilst pointing out that removal in no way reflects that I agree with you. Penyulap talk 17:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Colds7ream, why have you put sightings into station structure ? what is your thinking there, I can't see the logic for it. Certainly everything is related to station structure in some way, and for utilization and politics, it's all related to station structure, utilization is, in a big way, but the connection between station structure and sightings is much more remote. I can't see the connection there. Sightings are almost invariably done from the surface of the Earth, some from aircraft or spacecraft, but most of them, the majority, are done from outside the stations structure and far away. The stations structure has no special connection to the ability to see it, other satellites, many hundreds can be seen from the ground also. About 1 every ten or fifteen minutes on average. The objects that can be spotted from the ground vary considerably in size and magnitude. I think sightings should have a top level category if it can't go into the education, where I thought it belonged, as it is most helpful to students, and people 'studying' the skies. The education section already relates to adult studies. What is your thinking, why did you remove it from education, why is it in structure ?
Also colds7ream, can you explain your reasoning on the other changes you made to my index cleanup, why is education a part of exploration(of mars/moon/solar system) ? was it a typo on your part ? Penyulap talk 10:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Everyone settle down a bit. The Sightings section is the right place now I think. I've pared it down a bit, focused it a bit more on the what and why and included some more reliable sources (a couple books that make good mention of ISS spotting as well as a rather old but very well written article on the subject from the Hayden Planetarium).--RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Progress
I want to undo the redo of the old lead. I'm sorry Colds7ream, I have the deepest respect for your monumental past efforts but there many problems with the revert.
'take a deep breath, and count to ten.' -Directly from the wiki guidelines for exactly this situation
- There is broad consensus reached after a week of discussion on the talkpage.
- There are many issues with the old lead that have been addressed.
- There are many serious problems with the article if it stands the way you reverted it. Have you even read it?
- FA is not a destination, it's a milestone on a path that continues, Living in the past is not appropriate.
- Updating is required, the ISS project has not ground to a halt. It will not grind to a halt because the article reached FA status.
I spent a lot of time looking for the guidelines that say exactly this, to demonstrate moving on is not my idea, it's wiki ideal. Thats when I found the link above. I didn't find the part about moving on after FA in the guidelines anywhere, you know why ? after searching for ages to show you, I found it is at the top of this page.
Seriously if your just going to come back once a week or once a fortnight to go on living in the past and drag everyone else with you, without even reading what you are putting up there, then I can't be bothered updating the lead either, it's in the same crappy situation it is with MrClick who wouldn't articulate on the talkpage to save his life. Penyulap talk 15:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, as I have been doing constant and consistent research into all aspects of the ISS over the last few months, which everyone can see, as I have been adding the latest information and updating existing information across all subjects, and in depth spending countless hours and soliciting new material for release into the public domain from many sources including JAXA, I can justifiably say as an expert on all the latest ISS matters in diverse fields, the lead is crap. That is my opinion. If you'd like to know why, or what is wrong with the lead, I've already done your homework for you while you were away and It's written above on the talkpage, or some of it is. Penyulap talk 15:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Where are my manners, I forgot to wish you well in RL, I do look forward to working with you in future, when you decide to drop by again, and if you ever use the talkpage I'll be happy to work with you on improvements, if you ever think improvement is possible. In the mean time I won't bother making any updates to the lead no matter how justified they are, realizing they'll just be undone, whats the point? I'll just wait here and twiddle my thumbs and read a book. Penyulap talk 16:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of the errors in the lead section which still go un-noticed.
Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky.
Above is part of the previous content I wrote in a cleanup of the lead. I would like to ask Colds7ream, Craigboy, UK50, and John Darrow(john is the spelling/grammar ok?) Also TheAnarcat, Ckatz, Eregli bob, Mnw2000, other editors (sorry if I've left you out) and editors not logged in (I value your opinion as much as anyone's) reasons why this statement is more or less correct than the the text as restored by colds7ream.
With a greater mass than that of any previous space station, the ISS can be seen from the Earth with the naked eye, and, as of 2011[update], is the largest artificial satellite orbiting the Earth.
- (1) I'd like to point out that Colds7ream's restoration implies that Mass and Magnitude are related, so it can mislead some people into thinking that Mass has some relationship to Magnitude.
- (2) I'd like to point out it also could imply that the ISS became the largest orbiting satellite in 2011, which is not the date that the ISS became the largest orbiting satellite.
- I noticed that too but it looks like that has been fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had been specifically asking for consensus really, and asking colds7ream why he changed it, as you know very well from 'For the third time I am re-adding the same info to the intro' if something doesn't have consensus and support, it's victim to the next editor, so I'm asking people what they would support and why, stated as reasons for and reasons against. That way the article will have stability as well as being up-to-date and Neutral. Penyulap talk 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- (3) I'd like to suggest that my content points out that the ISS is the brightest object in the sky, after the Sun and Moon, and is an interesting fact for the lead. The only other place it's mentioned is towards the middle of the article in sightings, where I explain Magnitude. The mention of it's magnitude can prompt further study into astronomy, Mass is a relative dead end for further study, but it can be incorporated in a different sentence, rather than this one, where it may imply mass is related to refraction.
- (4) I'd like to point out it's shorter.
- (5) I'd like to suggest that Mass of the station is not as interesting as it's relative brightness to the Sun and Moon.
- (6) It includes the link to naked eye, which I recall was important to other editors. this is minor as they both mention it, and updating is a minor update.
To avoid edit warring behavior, please explain reasons about the content rather than editors, except to differentiate between the two. Please state reasons here, not in the edit summary.
- (7, not relating to the text) The included reference is to the Hayden Planetarium website, RadioFan pointed out to me a little while ago the word /blog/ doesn't necessarily invalidate a reference. I think this reference is as good as any, maybe better than most. Penyulap talk 05:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Mass of the station
The Mass of the station in the infobox is outdated. Doesn't have the last module in it.
The form of stating the stations mass needs changing, it needs the word 'approximate' or something similar.
As opposed to the size and geometry of the complex, which can be calculated, Mass and Magnitude can only be measured or estimated. You can quote conflicting sources to the end of time and they'll all be estimates, for example the crew don't weigh the trash as it's loaded into the robots for de-orbit, they don't have time or reason to. Calculating the mass by the re-boost burns is easier, using the propellant expended and the change in orbit. The mass of the complex is in the infobox, but could be mentioned again elsewhere qualified as an estimate, or a comparison, not a specific weight presented as a fact.
'approx 415' or approx '450' (my guess) or 'estimated at 415 tons' or '415 not including crew, experiments, supplies or propellants' simplified into 'empty weight' this is better than calculations adding launch weights together without qualifying it.
The Nasa source is outdated, it's last year, there is another module, plus every time a progress robot arrives or leaves it's about 2 1/2 tons difference in payload alone. Then, should 'lifeboats' be included in station mass, or separate like visiting spacecraft ?
Is anyone having trouble understanding any of this ?
I'd like anyone's input for ideas to improve the structure of statements about mass. Penyulap talk 09:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The mass listed in the article is infobox as of 03/09/2011 and is based on the best reference available. If there are more up to date sources available with similar reliability, it may be updated. Just to be clear, any speculation outside of reliable sources is original research and not permissible in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with all of that, it's the best available, and support it's continued useage, I'd support updating, I agree no wp:OR generally although I would support the usual adding up of stats for each module and element that's often done, for example adding EVA totals and so forth. If someone wants to do that for ISS components I'd support them, it would be more accurate and up to date, possibly a quick tally to find out if the current best available source is adding up empty weights, and if that is the case, I'd support anyone who lists a new total that includes the latest modules and any qualifier such as 'emptyweight or without payload' or similar. I'd also support the addition of the tare weight of the latest module to the tally. Penyulap talk 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Magnitude in Sighting section
(inserted note) The Magnitude of the ISS is sourced from the apparent magnitude article. It's currently stated at -5.9 and is rounded off to -6 occasionally in this article. The following long conversation was created mostly because of my poor memory, I apologize to all involved, and for the clutter I created. I simply couldn't recall where I got the final figure from after researching and writing. Penyulap talk 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please edit directly under this text to add your support or objection to the use of figures from the magnitude page. I abstain. Penyulap talk 23:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
There are better references pending on Magnitude, it will be updated onto the Magnitude page as well if it all checks out, but it will effect the wording in comparison to Venus, and may well see some more temporary additions to the 'media' section. I hope CountIblis will clarify all this. Penyulap talk 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Responses
- Oppose. Other Wikipedia articles are not valid sources (this is explicitly states in WP:IRS). The apparent magnitude article cites this heavens-above page as their source, which actually states the maximum brightness is -5.7.. which tells me the apparent magnitude article is out of date, and heavens-above has revised its calculation. Mlm42 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, there's this universetoday article which says the ISS is the second brightest object in the night sky.. it's not clear how they arrive at this conclusion, but it seems like a reliable source to me. Mlm42 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note that accordding to Universe Today, the ISS went from less bright than Venus to brighter than Venus due to the added solar panels in 2009, which suggests that the maximum brightness is somewhere in the range between -4 to -5 (Calsky.com gives a maximum possible brightness of -5, the brighness they give for passes of the ISS are a bit larger than what Heavens-Above gives for the same passes). The meaning of the -6 figures that are sometimes given is not always clear; the ISS is never that bright. These are either theoretical figures that are never achieved (Heavens-Above I think does mention this somewhere), or they are old estimates of how bright the ISS would eventually get when completed according to the original plans (the ISS will become far smaller than what was planned originally).
- So, I would urge caution on using the magnitude -6 figures that are sometimes found in some sources. Note also that the ISS would be easily visible during daytime if it were -6 and that was exactly what you can read in old sources dating back to the late 1990s that were looking forward to the completion of the ISS. But in reality, while you can see it in broad daylight conditions, it's a tour de force being perhaps just a bit brighter than Venus (see e.g. here how difficult that is and people who have experience in spotting the ISS during broad daylight conditions won't tell you that spotting that is much easier, so it's clearly not magnitude -6). Count Iblis (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Previous discussion
Click here to skip to the next section, Inclination
Count Iblis, please use the talkpage rather than the edit summary to express the reasons why you have changed Radiofan's editing of my text about magnitude.
I support Radiofans alteration of my text on the whole, except for the use of the word 'rivaled' (the ISS is not trying to, or designed to compete with the sun or moon) other satellites have used reflective surfaces to light up some northern hemisphere towns i recall, or have been proposed with a few tests.
Also 'with a maximum apparent magnitude when directly overhead of -3.8, slightly less bright than Venus.' may only be correct for your viewing position, but I can't help you further as you have not included a reference, which is necessary. Also 'less bright' I think could be improved upon.
I'd support the use of 'approximate magnitude of ' or 'approximate apparent magnitude' if that helps reach consensus.
Penyulap talk 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Magnitude -6 is the theoretical maximal magnitude, but as explained on the Heavens-Above website, this is never reached. The orientation of the solar panels are regulated so that they are always at right angles to the incoming solar rays. This causes a large amount of light to be reflected back to the Sun and not to the Earth; explaining why you never get close to the maximum theoretically possible magnitude of -6. I don't know about other good sources for this, perhaps some astronomy magazine would do, but I don't read those.
- Magnitude -6, b.t.w. would make the ISS easily visible during Noon, while in reality it is always difficult to spot during broad daylight conditions. So, it should be clear that -6 cannot possibly be correct.
Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Magnitude -6 is correct but it is also a maximum (-5.9 actually, the Hayden Planetarium article rounded down for some reason) and the article has been updated to reflect this. The Heavens Above site confirms this. Did you have concerns about Heavens Above or the Hayden Planetarium as reliable sources? Let's also keep in mind that these are apparent magnitudes which are normalized so no a -6 would not necessarily be easily visible during noon. Conditions (both atmospheric and orientation of station) have to be close to ideal to see a daylight pass. Since this section is focused on the brightness and other comparable objects (Sun, Venus, etc.) are expressed in terms of their maximums, it makes sense to express the ISS's maximum. --RadioFan (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's good to have you on the talkpage Count Iblis ! Welcome ! You are correct about it being a maximum magnitude, it varies a lot depending on a great many conditions. It actually can flare up to -8 I'll try to find you the sources for that, so you can read them for yourself, if you don't find it faster on google that is. Heavens above is a great source of info, I'd call it impeccable, but Chris Peat can't update everything thats not really relevant to his site, I've spoken with him when soliciting for images to be released into the public domain for use on wikipedia, and I see no reason why we can't assist him to update his site when we have found a wide ranging consensus on the magnitude or how it is actually best measured. I had the -5.9 figure and support it's use or -6, I had rounded off -5.9 and all magnitudes to the nearest when comparing it to the the sun moon and planets in my recent cleaning up. I support hayden as a reference, and heavens above is used extensively by many editors on this article already, as well as widespread across the 'spacey' communities. Penyulap talk 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, but -6 is completely wrong, as it would make the ISS appear to be way brighter than it actually is. It's a useless figure for how bright it would be if it were to reflect all the incident sunlight to Earth, which never happens. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- ". The orientation of the solar panels are regulated so that they are always at right angles to the incoming solar rays. This causes a large amount of light to be reflected back to the Sun and not to the Earth; explaining why you never get close to the maximum theoretically possible magnitude of -6." -I like that, you may not have been meaning to, but you just wrote perfect text suitable for the article. Penyulap talk 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok., but note that the brightness of the ISS as given in the table of passes is quite accurate. Also, you don't have to limit yourself to only Heavens-Above, other websites (e.g. calsky.com) also give information on brightness (calsky gives a higher brighness of -4.6 I think, but that's still way dimmer than -6). So, if you just pick a pass that brings the ISS overhad, it will give you the maximum brightness. You'll see that this doesn't strongly depend on your location, the hight of the Sun below the sky etc. etc., the brighness is only afected by a few tenths of a magnitude by these factors.
- Also, note that the reason why its difficult to see under broad daylight conditions is precisely because it is about magnitude -4. Then you really need clear blue skies, no haze etc. etc. If it were magnitude -6, then such factors wouldn't matter much, it would be readily visible during Noon, it would be hard to miss. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is visible at noon, under some circumstances, 'daytime passes' they're called, I'm not sure just how 'hard to miss' they are, I haven't looked or researched, I don't think I'd support phrases like "The ISS cut me off in traffic" just yet, (depends on who does the deorbit really) but if it is visible according to widespread sources during the daytime, is that enough ? I can find some sources for that if you like, if you can't google faster... ? Penyulap talk 21:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Count, would you give us some examples of a better way of phrasing it, I'd love it if you are able to just blurt out perfect text once again, (I don't think it was a fluke). Something to point out it's relative visibility in comparison to everything else in the sky, but recognizing that it's not always the case, using words everyone can understand, and brief, for the lead.. RadioFan and I and other editors can find the refs for you, to show it's accuracy. Penyulap talk 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok., I think we should also weaken the statement on brightness a bit as differences sources give differen figures (saying that it is -3.8 suggests a precision that isn't justified). Calsky.com gives a figure of -4.5 or so when it is overhead (while making the same statement about maximal theoretical brightness). So, perhaps the best thing to do is to say that its brighness is similar to that of Venus and then give a ref as a footnote where we say that the theoretical maximum brightness of about -6 is never reached in practice and then we say that more details can be found on websites such as Heaven-Above, Calsky etc. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've just made an edit along these lines. It's best not to give details on the -6 figure, that's a red herring, the issue is more that there are various estimates for the brighness that is actually reached when it is in the zenith. Count Iblis (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ok., I think we should also weaken the statement on brightness a bit as differences sources give differen figures (saying that it is -3.8 suggests a precision that isn't justified). Calsky.com gives a figure of -4.5 or so when it is overhead (while making the same statement about maximal theoretical brightness). So, perhaps the best thing to do is to say that its brighness is similar to that of Venus and then give a ref as a footnote where we say that the theoretical maximum brightness of about -6 is never reached in practice and then we say that more details can be found on websites such as Heaven-Above, Calsky etc. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Count, would you give us some examples of a better way of phrasing it, I'd love it if you are able to just blurt out perfect text once again, (I don't think it was a fluke). Something to point out it's relative visibility in comparison to everything else in the sky, but recognizing that it's not always the case, using words everyone can understand, and brief, for the lead.. RadioFan and I and other editors can find the refs for you, to show it's accuracy. Penyulap talk 22:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And those edits have been reverted. There is no consensus here that the -6 figure (now more accurately stated as -5.9) is problematic. Reliable sources for this information have been supplied if you have similarly reliable sources refuting it, then please share them here. Until then, please stop removing this section.--RadioFan (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes please everyone just use the talkpage as a scratchpad for writing out new fixes, as edit-warring behavior would support a request for review of the Feature article status. which is like more workload, and there is far too much work to do as it is, so just write things up, suggestions with the reasoning here, say what you support and what you don't and thats the consensus, once 2 or 3 editors say they support a sentence or ref, it's got consensus, and needs the same or more editors to overwrite it.
Penyulap talk 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please guys give me 5 minutes to go back over some of my research and find some refs for you, but read the section, just search for measured on the talkpage, Magnitude is something best measured, and the best refs will be astronomers, Chris Peat will tell you everything you need to know about which way to look at what satellite, or what that thing you thought was a UFO last thursday night was, but he doesn't look up and measure the magnitude of objects, he does prediction algorithms and programming and such..looking..Penyulap talk 00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I welcome any other (reliable) references but as you mention, Chris Peat's Heavens-Above is hard to beat. NASA, ESA JAXA agree as they link to as well as cite the Heavens-Above. If that site says the maximum mag is -6, I see no reason to doubt it and none have been offered here other than it's "obviously" false. It's coorborated by the Hayden Planetarium reference. Perhaps Count Iblis would like to explain to Neil deGrasse Tyson how his planetarium's website contains an "obvious" error. Until then let's follow the relavant guidelines here: Wikipedia:Disputed statement rather than removing the section entirely. We should also remember, especially difficult in the sciences, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--RadioFan (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here are some links to give you an idea, they all failed the grade for me, but you can use some of the language to feed back into search engines to find better...
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message802635/pg1 this one is a good link to an article that may be able to be found in an archive somewhere? like the internet archive maybe ? suggests -8
http://kendalastronomer.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/a-bit-of-satellite-watching/ no good http://www.disclose.tv/forum/nearby-asteroid-found-orbiting-sun-backwards-t3858.html -8, not bad. http://www.space.com/6870-spot-satellites.html pointing at -8
as you see, there is lots of work to do, but I was aiming at a conservative figure of -6 as a 'current' and reasonable maximum someone could be reasonably expected to observe, whereas some people are luckier being closer to the ground tracks, you should read up on the ground tracks of the iridium satellites, they are easier to predict. The solar panels on the station aren't rotated like clockwork, and they aren't all needed to operate at the same time as they don't always have load for them, because there aren't so many experiments going on. The reason the Russians haven't launched their science power platforms is there is just too much cheap electricity coming from the USOS's panels....Penyulap talk 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately all the links above are making estimates and fail WP:RS as they are posts in blogs and forums.--RadioFan (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention the Fanclub, I don't think I've been able to put the fanclub into the article, some of the new sections and material I put up and finished off have become firmly embedded into the article, I like how end of mission and de-orbit are at the end of the list of contents. Anyhow only some of the other works in progress have survived after I gave up on the page because of the troubles, I won't go into. Anyhow, there is the fanclub, which I haven't worked out where it rates a mention if at all, there is a link for it here, into the forum where sighting reports are listed and discussed... http://www.issfanclub.com/forum/46 Penyulap talk 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I dont think the Fanclub is an appropriate addition. This is essentially a forum which does not meet sourcing guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention the Fanclub, I don't think I've been able to put the fanclub into the article, some of the new sections and material I put up and finished off have become firmly embedded into the article, I like how end of mission and de-orbit are at the end of the list of contents. Anyhow only some of the other works in progress have survived after I gave up on the page because of the troubles, I won't go into. Anyhow, there is the fanclub, which I haven't worked out where it rates a mention if at all, there is a link for it here, into the forum where sighting reports are listed and discussed... http://www.issfanclub.com/forum/46 Penyulap talk 00:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree, -6 is absolutely not what someone could reasonably expect to observe. Really, the problem is that one needs a little background in Astronomy to understand this, Googling cannot make up for a lack of that, because you then can't properly interpret what you read in sources.
- The best thing to do is to work with sources that actually list the brightness of ISS passes and then write what they give for the typical brighness when it is overhead. That is clearly -4 and not -6. That the ISS can give flares up to magnitude -11 or so, can also be mentioned. Then -6 is the theoretical brightness which is never reached in practice, and that can be found in sources too, so there is little point in even mentioning the -6 figure. Also, everyone who knows a bit about astronomy knows that an object of magnitude -6 is readily visible during broad daylight conditions (Noon), you just need clear skies not necessarily perfect conditions. In reality the ISS is -4, which makes it difficult to spot during daytime (which is indeed the case, as can be found in numerous sources).
- The problem with mentioning -6 is that it makes the section look quite ridiculous to people who know more about this, as it's an obviously false statement. Count Iblis (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I dont think the article states or implies that -5.9 is the what someone could reasonably expect to observe. That's not the intent of the article or the section. Wikipedia is not a guidebook after all. The section clearly states this number as a maximum and again, it's well sourced with very reliable sources. Any reasonable reader would understand the difference between maximum and typical. If you feel that this should be clarified with some material on typical values, I'd support that. Please propose some text here.--RadioFan (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes yes, I agree they all FAIL wprs, I'm giving them as a place for you guys to start research, if I could find the original one I used for the -6 I'd just mention it, actually, what kind of an idiot am I? we should just go back and check it, it's got to be in there before colds7ream rolled back the article, maybe it's good, maybe it's a fail too. Either way, the pages will help give everyone a better idea of what this whole magnitude thing is about, it's a measured thing, from the ground, by astronomers, not something dictated by NASA or Chris Peat, it's not their department. It's astronomy, or at least I'm sure it is, I asked the question on astronomy and astrophotography pages, as it's not mentioned on either of those pages yet, so hopefully I can get astronomy experts to tell me if satellite viewing is or is not astronomy, and who knows, maybe give me a definitive answer as to who determines magnitude, and how, and help phrasing it correctly. If there can't be consensus on magnitude thats ok to, because we don't need to find any particular figure, we just say 'the magnitude of the station is determined by astronomers, this observatory[1] reports it can be been as high as X' or 'the exact magnitude of the station varies, some report it as high as' and just go with good, well referenced observatories... something like that. like i mentioned before mass and magnitude cannot be calculated, they can only be measured. Penyulap talk 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky Because both the moon, which wanes into a new moon, and the sun which sets, like the ISS can be variable, the ISS can be considered along those same lines, as the brightest object in the sky, sometimes, and we don't need to qualify it as sometimes, because the moon and sun don't need qualification either. Actually, it seems to be in there that way at the moment too... I just copied it. But thats the lead suggestion, and it should be explained in the sightings section more fully Penyulap talk 00:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- More details can and should be given. After all, many people have been observing the ISS and a lot is known. That it is about -4 when overhead is a hard fact, so there is no reason not to mention this here. That it can be observed with quite some effort during broad daylight conditions is also an interesting fact to note (there are no other satelites that can be observed during daytime, except for the odd iridium flash). The figure of -6 does not refer to an actual brighness; it can be mentioned, but, of course, only when explaining what this means correctly. And then one can mention that the ISS can give extremely bright flashes.
- I don't see what's so hard about writing up a paragraph that contains these elements. It's only the focus on some particlar text in a particular source (the -6 allegedly making the ISS the brightests object after the Sun and the Moon), that turns everything on its head. Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a suggestion for the Form of the sightings section, please consider it separate to the -6/-4 stuff, just the context.
It is especially easy to see the ISS without the use of equipment because of it's Apparent magnitude. After the Sun, Magnitude -27 and Moon -13, the ISS -X is the brightest object in the sky, ahead of Venus -5, Jupiter -3 and Mars -3. This excludes short-lived phenomenon such as Bolides and Iridium flares.[15]
Any good? we can of course make the figures exact, but for form is there consensus ? X is a figure we can determine separately Penyulap talk
- It's not ok. as far as Venus is concerned because the sources don't agree on that. Heavens-Above's -3.8 is less bright but Calsky's -4.5 is brighter. So, if we want to represent what the sources say, we can say that the ISS is approximately as bright as Venus when overhead. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- agreed, as bright as Venus is a good way to put it, would you go further, because venus cannot flare, but the iss can, Venus has it's own orbit that can obscure it completely when the sun occults it, and the ISS's orbit can take it into positions where it will flare brighter than venus ? is that a fair line of thinking?Penyulap talk 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's right, the ISS can flare and then it's brighter than Venus. I've read that these flares can be extremely bright, much brighter than Iridium flashes. Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- agreed, as bright as Venus is a good way to put it, would you go further, because venus cannot flare, but the iss can, Venus has it's own orbit that can obscure it completely when the sun occults it, and the ISS's orbit can take it into positions where it will flare brighter than venus ? is that a fair line of thinking?Penyulap talk 01:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- So would you agree with "Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. After the Sun and Moon the ISS is the brightest object in the sky"
as a short way to say it ?
- The problem I have with this is that it places the ISS after the Sun and the Moon, while it is close to Venus in brightness. The fact that it very rarely flashes should be mentioned separately (because these flashes happen very infrequently, it's not what you typically see when you observe the ISS). Saying that the brightness is similar that that of Venus conveys a lot more information about how bright the ISS actually is (most people have seen Venus). That only the Sun, Moon and possibly Venus are brighter can be mentioned in the next sentence.
- Then we should look up the brightness of the flashes, if I remember correctly it can be -11 which is extremely bright, similar to the Moon. If that's the casse (I'm not sure about this), then saying that a flash can be a quarter of the the brighness of the full Moon would be an interesting fact to mention.
And guys, don't worry about the article, Count Iblis is wanting to help, not adding profanity and such to the talkpage, and Count, just discuss and edit here, until everyone agrees first, then the article can be changed. Otherwise it's problematic for readers if we use the article as a sketchpad. Lets please continue Penyulap talk 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Basically the ISS is brighter, but like the moon, venus, and the sun, it does not reach it's maximum magnitude all the time as viewed from the observers location. But it is fundamentally the brightest object in the sky, second to the moon and sun, on a regular basis, excluding short-lived phenomenon such as iridium flares and bolides.? Penyulap talk 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The apparent magnitude (m) of a celestial body is a measure of its brightness as seen by an observer on Earth, normalized to the value it would have in the absence of the atmosphere. The brighter the object appears, the lower the value of its magnitude. from the article Penyulap talk 01:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud that is where I got the original figure from. the magnitude article. that's where it is, case closed on the figure for magnitude, i was correct at the beginning, and it's their headache not ours ! Sorry for the trouble my poor memory has given you guys...Penyulap talk 01:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Inclination
Whilst on the subject of sightings RadioFan, the part you edited in the sightings section "The ISS orbits at an inclination of 51.6 degrees to Earth's equator, necessary to ensure that Russian Soyuz spacecraft launched the the Baikonur Cosmodrome are capable of reaching the station.[132] While this orbit makes the station visible from most points on Earth, it is not visible from extreme northern or southern latitudes." I object to, as it implies that the Russian Soyuz is not capable of reaching the station in other orbits, which is not correct. It's a very flexible craft with a relatively high flight ceiling and can reach the harder-to-get-to orbit of 71 which is proposed for opsek. I can't agree with the use of 'capable', or 'necessary to ensure' without additional refs that support that. 'capable' is not the word the space elevator bloke used, I read some of his book (incidentally I think he missed out some interesting things, he should have outlined how tethers can interact with the magnetosphere to provide spacecraft propulsion for satellites, and emphasized that tethers are going to be more successful in use around the moon, because it has almost no debris, but he was being brief and non-technical). I do want to support you if you can write up how the orbit effects launches from all the launch sites, such as french guiana and japan as well as russia and america. Basically, the higher the inclination or payload the more fuel is needed (or less payload) thats why reboosting the station is delayed for weeks until just after a shuttle mission, it's to let the ISS drop low and let the shuttle carry more cargo. The ATV and HTV are heavy vehicles like the shuttle, but the soyuz is the lightest, 'it's not a truck' as the astronaut on his way up said the other day on tv. It has only one purpose, to carry people. Actually the crew seemed really overwhelmed when they spoke of it, saying how 'this craft' had only a single purpose, it was built 'for us' or did he say 'for me' ? well, anyhow he seemed to be having a religious experience about it being tailored especially to him, which it is. Anyhow, point is, it's the lightest of all manned spacecraft in use and has the greatest operational ceiling. The extra fuel it doesn't use flows back and forth into the space station automatically through the russian docking ports, the station is like a petrol station for the spacecraft, so extra fuel is offloaded into zaryas fuel tanks. Penyulap talk 21:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps it could be worded a bit differently if it is implying some slight on the Russians or the Soyuz but 51.6 was selected to accomodate launches from Baikonur. Its a compromise to ensure that the shuttle, Soyuz, and Progress can safely reach the station. You are correct that the Soyuz is a flexible craft that can reach many orbits but that doesn't mean it can reach all orbits safely. Baikonur is limited in availability trajectories to avoid dropping spent stages in the wrong places. Actually, If NASA were the only agency launching to the station, the inclination would have been much lower, to maximize payload capacity. An additional reference and a rewording to make it clear that the issue with the soyuz is that the inclination was chosen to ensure safe launch. I trust this will resolve the concerns above.--RadioFan (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you about the rewording too, But that is a brilliant ref, I'd like to see the 75% or 95% used in the new text, and I wasn't aware of the China thing, though I know the crew on a previous soyuz were worried about landing in there, when one of the designers who was aboard at the time yelled at mission control to hit the abort button(there wasn't one aboard at that time) after sections didn't separate properly.. They landed really heavily, survived though, but were very worried about where they were going to land....man it's one
heoops incredible craft. Anyhow, it would be good to mention the relative orbits and so forth, of all spacecraft in the program, for neutrality. Probably goes into the orbit section, and your new-found 75% and 95% go into sightings. That'd be my suggestion. I support that ref. Penyulap talk 23:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with you about the rewording too, But that is a brilliant ref, I'd like to see the 75% or 95% used in the new text, and I wasn't aware of the China thing, though I know the crew on a previous soyuz were worried about landing in there, when one of the designers who was aboard at the time yelled at mission control to hit the abort button(there wasn't one aboard at that time) after sections didn't separate properly.. They landed really heavily, survived though, but were very worried about where they were going to land....man it's one
- Edit conflict, sorry the above was replying to your original... anyhow, yes your right about the US-only inclination, but freedom never got past mockup, and america only got to first generation stations rather than 3rd generation stations, If it was russian only it would be 71 degrees inclination, which OPSEK will use, but they aren't going to change the inclination of the station until after the Russian modules or the ISS ROS like Nauka are removed, then just those modules will have trajectories changes, I expect progress tugs will do that work, but I can't find it yet...
- 71 degrees is where most of the ROS modules will end up, or at least the bigger most important ones they don't want to scrap. Nauka will goto 71, I outlined it in new material in the new end of mission or deorbit sections, and references I've made to OPSEK somewhere or other.Penyulap talk 01:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I apologize, it relates to the End-of-life and De-orbit of the whole station. the station is divided into two parts, the Russian Orbital segment (ROS), which is a space station by itself, and the US orbital segment, which can't be used as a space station by itself, it would decay from orbit if separated from the ROS, and doesn't have complete life support functionality. Once the USOS becomes too hard to maintain, or the partners are unwilling or unable to maintain it, the ROS will be removed and flown away to an orbit of 71 Degrees inclination. Some of it's minor modules may be discarded by the Russians and replaced with new ones, but large expensive ones in good order won't be. The Nauka module of the ISS will be moved into the 71 degree orbit. The USOS will be discarded. I know this aspect of the ISS may be something people do not wish to think about, it makes me wonder what will happen to the JAXA modules, and inspires me to research about their future plans, but End-of-mission is part of the ISS.
- I wonder if it has cultural parallels ? some people don't like talking (or thinking) about death, and some people talk about it in a civilized way. Is it a reflection on different societies treatment of their elderly population ? I often think the Ganges River, which is worshiped by, and fundamental to, the population around it, has parallels like that, as capitalism pollutes and corrupts the people, it does the same to the river. Penyulap talk 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Brightness in the Earth's shadow
The article suggests that it is invisible in the shadow, but this isn't true. I've seen it on numerous occasions with binoculars, and I would estimate the brighness to be about +7 or +8 when overhead, deep into the shadow. Now, there aren't many reports of such observations, so it is not easy to find appropriate sources for this.
What is clear is that it is very plausible that the ISS is visible in binoculars, as you can easily calculate that just few tens of Watts of the interior lighting escaping is enough to make it bright enough to be visible in binos. I'm not suggesting we include this in Wikipedia right now, it's just an interesting thing to look into. Count Iblis (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thats a fair statement, and the thinking is clear, but think I was giving instructions on how most people can view the ISS, without the use of equipment, possibly I didn't make it clear enough that the ISS disappears into the earths shadow when you are not using equipment.Penyulap talk 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and its also difficult to base this on good sources, so it is something to think about, search for in sources, rather than make an editing issue of it right now. It's similar to this issue I raised about Neptune. Theoretically, Neptune is a naked-eye object, but only under optimal conditions. But so far no-one has succeeded in spotting it, so it would be a bit of a stretch for Wikipedia to say that it can be seen with the naked eye. But it's something to watch out for; I've read that Brian Skiff is going to try again :). Count Iblis (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It reminds me of when I was a child, laying on the grass at lunchtime at school, I saw some objects so tiny, at such an enormous distance straight overhead, slowly moving in a line, about 3 or 4 of them, I am certain now that they were pieces of space debris. Now, I can hardly recognize people across the road. I studied and researched very hard to find a way to point out to the teachers, who are the ones who may read the page and set the lesson, that although they may not be capable of seeing the ISS the kids may well be able to. I had put a lot of thought into it, and research too, and it's not really reflected in the final sentence I wrote after all that, which pitifully hints at it this way...
- Heavens-Above is a not-for-profit website which can provide times and direction details for teachers, students and the public. Whilst the ISS is best viewed after sunset, and before sunrise, the ISS is bright enough to see during school hours in 'daytime passes' depending upon the visual acuity of the observers, weather conditions, station attitude (not altitude) in relation to observation point and the apparent magnitude of the ISS during the pass.
- I don't know if it's much good, but it ties in precisely with what you are saying, Visual acuity is required to be capable of seeing these incredibly faint objects during daylight. Just because the teacher can't see it doesn't prove it's not there. I think Brian would be better off searching for a person with excellent visual acuity instead of neptune. The page has to be written with everyone in mind, young, old, people who can see the ISS in the daytime, and people who are blind. The images have 'alt' descriptions, you can see the ones I have added for images I have inserted for solar array detail, the ISS photographed by Ralf Vandeberg, and many other pictures have alt descriptions for the blind, but not all of them, you see, there is an enormous amount of work to be done here, and it all needs such great care and attention to detail. When I'm using search engines to research, I often come across websites that have lifted and copied off this article, which is public domain, it's not just the 3,000 people a day who read it here, it's echoed across many other sites as well. The information has to be checked and researched thoroughly first. Unfortunately I sometimes forget where I saw or read a particular piece of information. It took me ages to find ' The Russian orbital segment handles Guidance, Navigation & Control for the entire Station.' now it seems so obvious, and the source is perfect, but it just wasn't here on the page and nobody knew, if you look at the old talk pages. Just keep reading and researching and finding out everything, follow links, and find things that are missing so we can put them in. Is looking at the ISS from the ground astronomy? or is only looking at the moon and stars astronomy ? I do not know, I think it is, but it's not on the astronomy page, or the astrophotography page either, neither one has any mention of any artificial satellites at all. I've asked in those talkpages, but there is more research to be done for those definitive answers and to update those two articles, which, when you look at them, look perfect, but don't answer such a fundamentally simple question. There is a lot of work to do here. Just to answer the question should the sightings section have see also astronomy, or not, is a good amount of work, I hope experts can answer it and I'll have that part done for us... Penyulap talk 07:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Where should space environment, microgravity, education, cultural outreach and sightings go ?
I wrote new material and arranged the purpose section and it's subsections here stating the essential aspects of the purpose (as best I could from my research).
From Essentialism 'Anthropology professor Lawrence Hirschfeld gives an example of what constitutes the essence of a tiger, regardless of whether it is striped or albino, or has lost a leg. The essential properties of a tiger are those without which it is no longer a tiger. Other properties, such as stripes or number of legs, are considered inessential or 'accidental'.
Why is the space station used for scientific research ? scientific research can easily be done on earth, can't it ?
The ISS is essential 'to conduct experiments that require one or more of the unusual conditions present on the station.' Then the purpose section has two subsections, which explain two of those conditions briefly. The subsections are Space environment and Microgravity.
The purpose section moves on to explain why the ISS is essential to exploration. It covers the original purpose which has evolved and changed with each new administration. Starting in the past with the original purpose, it is currently missing the present purpose (which needs insertion, it was disputed, removed, I haven't added new text there as yet) and goes on to the partners intentions (those which I have found so far). The section hasn't changed, and remains in the same place in purpose. The purpose section then moves on to education, covering the unique interaction the ISS has with classroom studies and astronomy studies, one section runs into the other, so students in the classroom can observe the ISS directly.
The purpose section finished with the cultural outreach section, not intended to be trivia, but to cover topics such as Arts in space, such as this which is not science or exploration or education. It would outline the use of the ISS to ease international (cold war style) tensions between nations, and possibly absorb items of importance that fit nowhere else, such as the ISS in movies and books, but thats beyond the scope of my enquiry, I'd leave it to others decide what goes in there besides art, and what doesn't.
Currently the sections are in disarray. I've asked the admin why they have been changed here on the 10th of June, but no reasons have been forthcoming from any editor as to why the categories are arranged in their current state. Astronomy is the study of celestial objects, so I'd suggest that it is more a part of education, rather than station structure, granted it is not the purpose of the ISS to be studied, but it helps the education section, which is teachers and students first port of call. Sightings of the station are almost always done from on earth not from the station structure. The station structure is not essential to sightings, many smaller satellites are observed from earth, even with the naked eye.
Microgravity is not part of station structure, the purpose of the structure is to study and take advantage of microgravity. But the station doesn't create artificial gravity, it's built in a place that takes advantage of it. There are reasons why it would go into the structure section, but it is required in the purpose section to explain the purpose.
Likewise, the space environment, not in it's current form, but in it's form here (same ref) is also required to explain purpose, it mentions the dangers of the space environment in passing because scientific studies performed on the ISS involve studies of it's effects on the health of space travelers. It also flows into the exploration section, which discusses the space environment and microgravity. In it's earlier form the safety aspects section covered issues relating solely to the crew onboard. Iss->Safety as in crew safety only. Penyulap talk 11:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Colds7ream, can I have your thoughts on this reasoning please ? Penyulap talk 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Education and cultural outreach section text
Here is some new text for the education section, I'm still waiting and working on JAXA for images to be released into the public domain, but I would like to see if there is support for mention of the EPO experiments. I don't know if it's good enough without pics. The proposed new text of the Education and cultural outreach section would look like this. Italics added for clarity.
Part of the crew's mission is educational outreach and international cooperation. The crew of the ISS provide opportunities for students on Earth by running student-developed experiments, making educational demonstrations, and allowing for student participation in classroom versions of ISS experiments, and directly engaging students using radio, videolink and email. The ISS program itself, with the international cooperation that it represents, allows more than 20 nations to live and work together in space, providing lessons for future multi-national missions.[refs]
Amateur Radio on the ISS (ARISS) is a volunteer program which inspires students worldwide, to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics through amateur radio communications opportunities with the ISS crew. ARISS is an international working group, consisting of delegations from 9 countries including several countries in Europe as well as Japan, Russia, Canada, and the USA. The organization is run by volunteers from the national amateur radio organizations and the international AMSAT (Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation) organizations from each country.[refs]
JAXA also utilizes the Kibo laboratory for culture/humanities and social sciences. JAXA states that Looking into the Space environment and guiding the humankind to untold surprise or wonder, and broadening our wisdom is one of the goals of the International Space Station.[refs]
please edit below this text for support/objection to going with the above text, and working out pics here later on.
The verbatim phrase from JAXA is 'Looking into the Space environment and guiding the humankind to untold surprise or wonder, and broadening our wisdom are one of the goals of the International Space Station.' I changed the word 'are' to 'is' so I don't use quotation marks, or should it be put into quotation marks and left as it is? maybe with [sic] added ?
The photos in the public domain are no good at all, it's better for now I think to with just the text alone. I'm trying to get pictures like these Art 1Art 2 art 3 in japanese, art 4and here is a 4.0 MB PDF, the marbling in space pic would be good I think. Any image I can get, I'd like to make it as small as is practical, about the size of the ones in the pressurized modules table. Personally I think art is less appealing to the western general public, however sections of all communities, and the Japanese, seem to me to take art and culture quite seriously, and so as one of the ongoing stated goals of the ISS, I think it rates at least a minor mention in this section. Penyulap talk 00:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictures
Restructuring PM table, gallery / gallery article
The article can be improved by showing the interior of each of the Pressurized modules, it shows the outside of each one, which is good for construction, but could be improved to engage the readers more than it does at the moment.
The existing Pressurized module table could be modified slightly, to include one extra thumb per module, with an image selected to describe the interior of that module, or highlight it's best features. Although, some modules are much more interesting than others. Dawn and the MPLM's are not as interesting as the robot arm control boards, docking control panels, guidance and propulsion control and so forth, so they might do well if there was an extra section with thumbs for each of these items.
These new ideas are especially attractive to me because they will write themselves, unlike my efforts in the costs section, which is a painful mess, it was a mess before, and I've made the mess bigger now with no hope of fixing it myself, and it's not an attractive target for editors. Finding the good photos and writing descriptions relies primarily on agreeing and creating a structure for the section, as editors who enjoy photos are in no short supply. Seriously, who doesn't want to see the bridge of a space station ? Who doesn't want to see the buttons for the robots and imagine pressing them. This is a winner right here.
Am I missing anything ? Is there an article out there called ISS gallery I don't know about because it has no proper linking to this article ? These things happen. I ran into this the other day. If it doesn't exist, can someone help me make it for overflow from here ? Although the NASA photos don't seem as high a quality as some of the more elusive prey, they are certainly abundant enough and easily included. I think after one or two pics are popped in here, everyone will get this idea, I have some in mind. Penyulap talk 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
New pictures, picture ideas
Ariss picture.
A student speaks to crew on the International Space Station using Amateur Radio equipment, provided free by volunteers of the ARISS program. The description has been shortened from this, to what is seen at the right, and the picture is as small as it can be without disrupting the description too much.
I've had it released and uploaded as education is a very significant purpose of the ISS, and there are no pictures except sightings pictures, I figure this one helps illustrate the ISS in it's role in Education. Support, objections anyone ? Penyulap talk 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
New picture of the layout?
Now that we have gorgeous pictures of the ISS with Endeavor docked to it, I have made this drawing based on those pictures that show a real view of what is actually on the space station. It is fairly complete, only the truss details are missing. Where could we put this? TheAnarcat (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on your picture's inclusion or exclusion at this point, that is, I abstain from any kind of vote at the moment.
- I'll predict it may be a target because there are already some pictures that do a similar job, like the one in the infobox.
- Now what I will say for myself is I like it because it's not an exploded view of the station, which is harder to understand for many people. I think there is a lot of writing on the image you could put into the description instead, like the materials that you used to create it, and the shuttle / Soyuz could be just pointed out, rather than in the large letters. But your idea is a winner, the labelling of a photograph is something that we desperately need, your work will find a permanent place in the station structure section, continue with your revisions that you've been doing to it.
- Please make the image size smaller if possible, I think your computer is designed for counterstrike, it's big and fast and new, but many people use older computers, and use dialup(I don't), which is not dead, or satellite and so on...(that is why I put such work into alt descriptions of photos I insert, it's for blind people I think) but you don't need to worry about an alt description for this photo.
- You've targeted a niche that is needed, as so many people look at photos and do not know what is what, how can they ? Your idea will provide a shortcut to that, so keep at it. BRILLIANT !! Penyulap talk 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree there may be too much text in there. Keep in mind that I finished this at 4AM after 3 hours of research... :) Soyuz, in the title, *can't* be pointed out because it's where the camera is. ;) Maybe more of that stuff can end up in the description however...
- As for making the image smaller, i started with the full resolution photograph from the NASA and surimposed vector data using Inkscape, and that resulted in a somewhat big SVG, but not that big. Working on it was quite fast on my computer (Pentium dual core 2.9Ghz + 2GB ram), but I can understand the image size can be a problem for smaller machine. There are, however, renderings at 500px, 1000px and 2000px done by mediawiki itself that should render fine on any computer that can render images. :) I prefer to keep the uploaded image full resolution so that modifications can be performed on it without any loss.
- So I agree more improvements can be done, but right now, anybody with a reasonably fast computer and Inkscape can make those modifications. I am not sure I'll have much more time to invest in it now... Thank you very much for your encouragements, it makes it all worth while. :) TheAnarcat (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Astrophotography
The picture on the left by Raplh Vandeberg, also mentioned on this page here has support, but I want to bring attention to the 'astrophotography' mentioned, for expert opinion, from experts in that field.
I've raised questions about it's technical definition as opposed to it's common useage, to see if it's a misnomer, on the astronomy, astronomical object, and astrophotography talk pages. However, it only has a passing mention, and I feel it's best to leave it with it's common useage until it's discussed properly on those appropriate pages. The discussion should go there, not here, and if it ever gets expert opinion referenced and updating of those pages, I'll update it here. Penyulap talk 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Computer image
Here is a general picture I would dearly love to see included on the page, however I haven't yet asked about it's release into the public domain, for anyone who wishes to do so, wikipedia has a 'embassy' forum/talkpage thingy with multilingual editors who will assist you, so you don't need to butcher their language using google translate as I often do, lolz. (but remember, do your homework yourself, don't ask other people to help with the parts you can do if you try). RadioFan, would this be good for that computer section ?
Here is the link for LadsPawnMCbuttInCntrStrike.jpg from the page here it would be nice to open the door to this great source of images, there are great ones of the food and all sorts of things. Penyulap talk 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A similar probably can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Found two, but they aren't as good. One Two--Craigboy (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Somemore. Three Four--Craigboy (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Five Six--Craigboy (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I support you on number 6's inclusion anywhere you like, it's a refreshing change, brilliant find. May I suggest it complements the new docking section. Something like 'Crew reberthing JAXA's robotic cargoship "white stork" Kounotori 2' see also reincarnation. Penyulap talk 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Be back soon!
Just to let everyone know my exams this year are this week, so I'll be back editing properly soon! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to offer sincerest best of luck on your exams. I look forward to you having more time to edit. Penyulap talk 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Recognition of Japans contribution to the ISS
I have asked here for the article to be included in WikiProject Japan, after I noticed a glaring omission, that this article isn't part of WikiProject Japan, I have also asked here regarding CSA's involement. Penyulap talk 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I just added the WPJ banner, so Done. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
RFC: New Draft of the Lede section.
This is Draft of a new lede section, please comment on any faults of errors you can see and say if you support it or not. Please do not copy and paste parts out of this into the current lede, upsetting the current prose. This Draft is written in a different prose to the current lede. This is the first paragraph only, other paragraphs will contain other facts and points not covered in this first paragraph.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in Low Earth Orbit. The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations. The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. These are the five major partners of the project. The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity.
- Previous discussion
This is a sentence by sentence breakdown of the lede first paragraph explaining the choice of wording.
- habitable rather than manned or unmanned, the station flew by itself for about 2 years, and towards the end of it's life, or unforeseen emergencies or other reasons, may do so again. But it is different from artificial satellites because it can be manned or unmanned. This single word gives both meanings.
- habitable artificial satellite defines what a space station is, allowing the article to stand alone.
- in Low Earth Orbit describes where it is utilized. It existed on earth in uninhabitable parts, but became a habitable artificial satellite in orbit once Zarya and Zvezda docked. It is not suitable for use as a habitable station outside earth orbit without modifications for shielding, it's unlikely, as the partners haven't said anything AFAIK.
- The first sentence describes what the ISS is at all times. Science does not define the station at all times, when it is uninhabited for example, or with changing usage. NASA has been looking for other groups to take over all science that doesn't relate to exploration for the last 5 or 6 months, wanting to hand off management to someone else. Potentially it may abandon the station altogether before the end of it's life. Russia has not launched it's main laboratory as yet, it serves other purposes for Russia. Science is inessential to defining the station, even though it is the major activity.
- The ISS is the the 11th space station
successfullylaunched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and Mir space stations. establishes context. Mentioning the Chinese space station will join it in space in a different orbit next year is also contextual, but it has been pointed out that this is a proposed station. Maybe that can wait until next year, when it will be required for context if it is launched. OPSEK, the successor to the ISS should be mentioned, not because it is proposed, but because most of the ROS of the ISS will be used for OPSEK. Those modules of OPSEK both exist, and are in orbit right now. To explain the end of the ISS requires mention of OPSEK, because the ROS is not planned to be de-orbited. - The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. is an interesting fact, that also slips in the launch date, the name of the first module, and the ISS's position in international relations.
- The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, the Russian MIR-II project is mentioned first as it was the more mature project, in Feb 1985 the Zvezda service module which renders the station habitable, and controls guidance and propulsion for the entire station, had it's spaceframe completed as part of the MIR-II program, and by October 1986 the major internal equipment was installed. Americas Alpha space station project had been scaled down 9 times between 1986 and 1993, when the US congress failed to kill the proposal altogether by a single vote.
- with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. none of these are space station projects, despite the articles claims for as long as I can recall, and another editor saying they were, which I simply haven't wanted to argue (I don't like to argue).
- These 5 agencies are the 5 major partners of the project. This short sentence uses the previous sentence to name the five partners, keeping the lede short.
- The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity. Lays out why the ISS is different from every other internationally-developed research facility in existence.
- Utilization is the word chosen, because like the Antarctic bases, whose purpose includes staking claims for the mineral resources and territories of that continent, the people in those bases use those bases for research. Scientific research is a larger portion of usage than it is of purpose.
I'd like to put up more of the draft after RFC on this paragraph. Penyulap talk 09:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to oppose the proposed text as it is full of factual and grammatical errors, is not written in the same dialect as the rest of the article, puts too much emphasis on trivial points such as the name Zarya, and is quite simply far inferior to the current text. --GW… 10:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- it would help a lot if you could list some or all of these errors, starting with the largest ones as you see them. Would it be better if the first module is not named or named in a later paragraph, or not at all in the lede? Penyulap talk 01:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- if you could put them in point form here, it will help keep things tidy, please replace this text with the errors.
- The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite: whilst the term "satellite" is technically correct it is never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft
- The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity. If success is a criteria then it is the ninth: Salyut 2 and Kosmos 557 both failed immediately after launch, and it is misleading to imply they were successful simply because they reached orbit.
- following the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and Mir space stations. "Cosmos" (or to spell it correctly, "Kosmos") is not a type of space station. If you read the Kosmos article, you will see that it is a name used to avoid acknowledging information on classified satellites and to hide failures. In this case the latter is true.
- These 5 agencies are the 5 major partners of the project. Quite apart from WP:MOSNUM, this oversimplifies participation in the programme.
- The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity doesn't even make sense
please consider these ideas on the points you have raised
- (is not written in the same dialect) if you could help me to correct these, and also the parts of the existing article I'd appreciate it, please pay close scrutiny to the new exploration and education sections, I wrote half the work there, parts of the Origins, Assembly, Orbit control, Communications, Microgravity, pretty much all of the Docking section, parts of maintainence, orbital debris, sections and parts of space environment, Anomalies, all of the costs section except part of the first sentence, all of the temporary media section, and probably all of the end-of-life and de-orbit sections, can't recall. If you could suggest how this Draft paragraph could better suit the dialect of the article, or how those sections I have listed could better suit the dialect of the article I would be really appreciative, as I can't correct my own work, I need, and I'm asking for, help there.
- (trivial points such as the name Zarya) yes, it is a trivial fact to many, however it is used as a framework to hit 5 birds with one stone, the launchdate of the station, the first module, and the 'international co-operation' the project represents. It combines the existing 'and the first module of the station, Zarya, was launched in 1998 by Russia.' and 'On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 ' with an interesting fact, and I thought it would be good to mention 'international cooperation' in the lede, This one sentence, is also much more compact than it's components. Penyulap talk 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(reply to your helpful comments, and thank you !!!!)
- 'whilst the term "satellite" is technically correct it is never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft'
- How come ? I'm not trying to argue here, just to understand, same as with the -6 magnitude, it was referenced everywhere that way, but it was wrong, and I'm glad it was explained by the Count too. Even Wiki and Heavens-above were wrong. A quick google and some of the dictionaries available online say it like this :
- wikipedia : A space station is a manned satellite designed to remain in space for a long period of time, (we can't use wiki as a reference, but see what I mean, after it is sorted out we will need to update the other article as well, just like magnitude article.)
- thefreedictionary.com A large satellite equipped to support a human crew and designed to remain in orbit around Earth for an extended period
- dictionary.reference.com an orbiting manned structure that can be used for a variety of purposes, as to assemble or service satellites, refuel spacecraft, etc.
- englishdefined.com a satellite which orbits the earth in which people can live and carry out scientific
- dictionary.reverso.net any large manned artificial satellite designed to orbit the earth during a long period of time thus providing a
- merriam-webster.com a large artificial satellite designed to be occupied for long periods and to serve as a base
- answers.com A large satellite equipped to support a human crew and designed to remain in orbit around Earth for an extended period and serve as a base for launching exploratory expeditions, conducting research, repairing satellites, and performing other space-related activities.
- webdictionary.co.uk a manned artificial satellite in a fixed orbit designed for scientific research
- dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/space-station a vehicle in which people can travel round the Earth, outside its atmosphere, doing scientific tests (space shuttle anyone ?)
- macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/space-station a laboratory in space that people can live in for long periods of time
- realdictionary.com -a vehicle in which people can travel round the Earth, outside its atmosphere (again, spacecraft anyone ?)
- ldoceonline.com a large spacecraft that stays above the Earth and is a base for people travelling in space or for scientific tests
- why is it never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft ?
- 'Salyut 2 and Kosmos 557 both failed immediately after launch, and it is misleading to imply they were successful simply because they reached orbit.' well I had qualified it with 'launched', how about changing it to say 'successfully manned'? and delete those two ? What is a good way to qualify them, or define success ? Like for planning or proposed the list is insanely long, I'm sure I can find more than 1,000 different proposals and planned stations, so that's ridiculous, it's not the 5234th space station, well, if we say proposed it's true. BUILT, I'm sure I can find many cults that have built space stations, they are real and you can touch them, but they haven't been launched. Skylab has to be included as it was a success in many ways even though it was seriously damaged during launch and ongoing problems made it impossible to fulfill it's mission completely. I was thinking Launched, but manned is better if that is what you have in mind.
- The ISS is the the 9th space station successfully manned by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Skylab, and Mir space stations.
(the whole context thing is going to get more interesting soon enough, with the 1st gen Chinese station being launched within the year of so, the Chinese are happy to co-operate with any other nation in manned spaceflight, so we'll have potentially two ISS's up there, I'm not mentioning it now, as it's not launched, but it will be manned pretty quick, and knowing the Chinese program and economy, they could zip backups off the production line in a flash.)
- '(or to spell it correctly, "Kosmos") is not a type of space station.'Firstly, THANK YOU, my spelling is terrible (I never can thank the copy editors enough) ! So do you mean they should be kept, because they were space stations, however, the term the Russians used for them is not the one we should use, or do you mean it would be better to say it like this
- The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations.
- 'this oversimplifies participation in the programme.' Well, the 5 get mentioned in the sentence preceding this comment, so even though there are like 50 nations getting into it, and they'll have their mention, there are the big 5 who run the show. How would you use the opportunity of the preceding sentence to knock over the need to point out the big 5, and do it in half a sentence, rather than have to list each agency later on in the lead ? like this? It's short.
- These are the five partners of the programme.
- keep in mind, I'm only trying to knock off the 5 using as little real estate as possible, the rest of my draft will get to the others. (I'm just trying to get one paragraph at a time looked at, rather than find other solutions to fixing the ongoing problems)
- 'The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity doesn't even make sense' fair enough, I'm trying to differentiate between the ISS purpose and usage.
- The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space, and microgravity.
- More approachable, shorter too, concise, no need to qualify that as purpose or usage. Also, could you expand on why Zarya's name is trivial, and what translations for dialect are needed ?
Penyulap talk 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a point of view that didn't occur to me till just then, are you concerned about the use of the word successfully ? as in successfully launched, because your right there, it's not a good choice of word. People would argue until the end of time about skylabs launch. Is it better like this
- The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations.
Penyulap talk 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If it isn't broke..
Maybe I missed something, but what's wrong with the current lead paragraph? The proposed one doesn't really seem better in any way that I can see. The current lead seems clear, concise, neutral, well-written, informative, well-referenced.. it gets to the core of what's important quickly and efficiently. To me, it is what one should expect from an opening paragraph of a featured article. So could the proposer please clarify what problem it is they are trying to fix? Mlm42 (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with you Mlm. I think everything you said is true. I don't think it needs to be changed, maybe updated, but even then I don't think it really needs that. We have to be careful making to many changes, we don't want to make it so bad it loses its FA status.--NavyBlue84 02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Mlm42, and NavyBlue84, and thank you for your comments. I'd like to apologize for my lack of ability to properly articulate the problems with the current lead paragraph. I had made some efforts in this regard, such as in entire sections of the talkpage called 'Introductory paragraph' and 'Problems with the old introductory paragraph' amongst others. I've also tried to be much less verbose and approachable, using 'it's crap' as a description. I have serious trouble finding some balance between these two ends of the scale, finding a 'sweet spot' where more editors may actually address the actual problems one by one, rather than skimming over and ignoring problems altogether. I apologize for my shortcomings in this regard. Penyulap talk 06:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay.. but you still haven't really answered the question: What is the problem with the lead paragraph? I still don't understand how any part of your proposed version is an improvement on what's already there. Mlm42 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I find this a monumentally astonishing question, really I do, and the reply to the next section is equally breathtaking. "(try searching the archives of this page)" You are replying to a statement I make concerning the archives, by suggesting I read the archives. I'm dumbfounded. Your asking "What is the problem with the lead paragraph?" when entire sections of the talkpage have been devoted to that subject and nothing else. Please, I've tried the edit summary like everyone else, I've done the talkpage thing until you've begged me to stop as it is too long to read, and now I should reiterate ? Please, give me half an hour or so, I have to find matches and call my neighbors so I can send carrier pigeons and smoke signals. I've tried everything else. I really am at a loss to do more. I need a doctor, this is all too much for my comprehension. Penyulap talk 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Okay.. but you still haven't really answered the question: What is the problem with the lead paragraph? I still don't understand how any part of your proposed version is an improvement on what's already there. Mlm42 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, what reliable source states that the ISS is the 11th space station? Because if we don't have a source that says that, then it shouldn't be in the article (and definitely shouldn't be in the lead). Although the "Origins" section mentions the other stations, the intro doesn't link to any of them.. so if a change were to be made, the most natural place seems to be the insertion of a single sentence in the second paragraph. But I'm not sure what such a sentence should say.. perhaps Penyulap has a suggestion? Mlm42 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.
The language variant used in this article is a topic that seems to have created tension between some editors in the past.
This poll is simply to investigate which demographic editors are wanting to write this article for.
Simply majority consensus / first past the post has been asked for before. It's in the archives. There are still many who are not happy with the article, leading to occasional calls for change, and extra work for editors. Personally I have no opinion on the Variant/dialect used, however, I do see that it is a possible source of ongoing tensions.
As significant time and effort is put into the discussion of language used in this article, I'd like to contribute to a reduction in this workload in a constructive way. Rather than have another drive to address these concerns in the same way, and to avoid creating workload for people outside the ISS editors, I'll open a long-term poll.
- No time-frame is given, and no call for change is given by myself or implied. This is simply to gather peoples preferences and ideas. It may help guide change later though, if someone wants to call for change based on a tally or changes that occur to the tally over the life of the article.
- You are invited to state a preference for just one language if you want.
- You are invited to say you don't care if you want to.
- You are invited to rank the dialects/variants in order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) of preference if you want.
- You are invited to rank more than one dialect equally, for example, you can state a first preference and two second preferences if you want.
- No request for changed behavior is given or implied. Editors are invited to contribute in any way they can, regardless of their language abilities. There are plenty of editors willing to assist with grammar, punctuation and dialect without needing help from the Wikipedia English embassy, or is it this one http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Embassy these embassies are designed amongst other things, to help people contribute to Wikipedia when they are otherwise unable to do so because of language barriers, I've used them before.
At some point when there are enough responses to warrant, I'll tally the results using the Ranked Pairs system, which after a study of systems that might apply best to a talkpage/article which has fallen into this situation, is the best I can find. (without asking the higher-ups for help, I'm assuming here we can all be mature enough to find some common ground ourselves).
- Ranked pairs is a voting system that selects a single winner using votes that (may or may not) express preferences. When a voter does not give a full list of preferences they are assumed, for the purpose of the count, to prefer the language they have ranked over all other languages.
- Other voting systems that take into account preferences, like two round and Exhaustive ballot wouldn't take into account the views of people who have been so upset that they have expressed their discontent and left without returning. Ranked pairs allows these strong views to be weighed fairly in a poll.
- The first-past-the-post system may discourage some people from expressing their sincere views. I'd prefer people express themselves freely.
Now and then, I'll tally the results again if someone asks, or there have been a good few more. If I leave in a few years, someone else is welcome to do so.
If this problem is alleviated by the creation of separate Wikipedias for EN-GB and EN-American and EN-INT Wikipedia, please don't use this poll's results on those new article pages. (If separate wikis were created, I'd for one be happy to contribute to all 3, I already actually contribute on foreign wikis regularly where I can't speak a single word of the language, it's all good).
As for my vote, as I've said I have no opinion, but will abstain anyhow, I'd rather offer impartial assistance to discover and repair the cause of the discontent, and I understand there may well be people who wouldn't want it fixed, but would rather things continue as they are.
As a footnote, I'd like everyone to consider the alt descriptions for images, which are for the blind. At the moment, I haven't been able to keep up with these on the new images for this article. Penyulap talk 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed several times (try searching the archives of this page), and seems to come up every so often. At the end of the day, I think it doesn't really matter which variety of English we use, as long as it's consistent. Since this article has essentially used British English since it's inception (about 10 years ago), I don't see any reason to change it. If it were to change from British English, it would be to American English, since the Americans have the biggest stake in the station compared to other English-speaking nations (and I don't know what "International English" is..). Anyway, since this doesn't change the content of the article, I don't think it's really worth wasting our breath over it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- As per the above, there have been repeated discussions over the matter, and no sound rationale for change has evolved. While I'm certain that your intentions are good, the methodology you have outlined above will not resolve the matter but instead only drag it out over an extended period. --Ckatzchatspy 17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plus, as we all know, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ckatz, I thought you were too busy to help out ? I asked you, specifically, by name, about the lead section more than two weeks ago, and you've been busy editing most every day since, I see you have no time for discussing the ISS material, that's ok, I understand, but I'm glad to see your almost instant response about ENG:VAR, that's very helpful. Penyulap talk 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- that's very helpful.. hmm.. assuming Penyulap isn't being sarcastic, I agree, it was helpful? And editors are free to take part in any discussion that they wish.. we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs, after all. Mlm42 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- Mlm42, this is confusing me, first you want to talk about ENGLISH, but now you don't ? I don't understand. You said here in the edit summary, the following
(cur | prev) 00:09, 28 June 2011 Mlm42 (talk | contribs) (172,559 bytes) (program -> programme. Article is written in British English; to challenge this, use the talk page) (undo)
- I'm not challenging anything, I have made that crystal clear. I'm happy for it to be English or Maori or Hillbilly. I'm simply following your suggestion to use the talkpage. I'm simply asking questions, would you prefer I stop ? You mention 10 years ago, are you sure that's the last change ?
(cur | prev) 07:52, 28 June 2011 Penyulap (talk | contribs) (141,258 bytes) (→ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.: new section) (undo)
- Have I struck a raw nerve here by responding to your request ? I'm getting an almost instant response on this issue, whereas ISS issues go literally un-noticed for months. Penyulap talk 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- (I'm responding quickly because I'm sitting at my computer) I'm also confused. If you're not challenging the ENG:VAR, then why did you start this section? It's not like this issue hasn't been brought up and discussed at length multiple times in the past.. (archived discussions can be easily searched using the tool at the top of the page). Mlm42 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Penyulap, please stop with the backhand comments and slights. We disagreed on an edit, it's done, move on. Your comments and over-reaction to our limited interactions border on the tedious, as far as I'm concerned, and are completely out of proportion to the handful of edits you're focussing on. Again, please move on. --Ckatzchatspy 19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have I struck a raw nerve here by responding to your request ? I'm getting an almost instant response on this issue, whereas ISS issues go literally un-noticed for months. Penyulap talk 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
FAR??
It's not clear to me why this article has been nominated for Featured Article Review. The first step of FAR says
- Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
What exactly are the issues that need to be resolved? Can the nominator, Penyulap, please state in one or two sentences the main issues which are not resolved? I can't say I've read all of the text on this talk page due to its length.. so a very short summary of the main concerns would be nice. Mlm42 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It takes time to put in the whole FAR thing properly, it's in there now. probably lost about 2 new sections of editing wasting time on this, or one good section on robotics. Thanks for the heads-up on my talkpage, I do hope the response there clarifies things.
- Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
- For a twitter-sized explanation see the bold text in the FAR thingy. Penyulap talk 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is clearly and obviously written using British English which is IMO perfectly ok however it has caused a lot of strong feelings in the past and I believe that is the reason that some feel it doesn't meet FA criteria. There is no reason to change that IMO and the article appears to be perfectly within FA quality standards. I too would like to hear any ideas on how the article can be improved. Maybe I'm missing something. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Kumioko, welcome, it's good to have an experienced editor here. The ISS article has mistakes, however I'd like to start first with context of the lead section. Can you tell me by looking at the article if the ISS is the first ever space station, 8th or 15th ? Is that information something that might be important to mention, the ISS context in relation to other space stations.? I think Skylab, and other space stations are context. Penyulap talk 19:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This information is in the article Space Station. The "Origins" section clearly indicates that it's not the first.. even the opening sentence, which says "largest space station ever constructed" suggests that it's not the only one. Mlm42 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then can we get the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) updated please, maybe like this.
- This information is in the article Space Station. The "Origins" section clearly indicates that it's not the first.. even the opening sentence, which says "largest space station ever constructed" suggests that it's not the only one. Mlm42 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello Kumioko, welcome, it's good to have an experienced editor here. The ISS article has mistakes, however I'd like to start first with context of the lead section. Can you tell me by looking at the article if the ISS is the first ever space station, 8th or 15th ? Is that information something that might be important to mention, the ISS context in relation to other space stations.? I think Skylab, and other space stations are context. Penyulap talk 19:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is clearly and obviously written using British English which is IMO perfectly ok however it has caused a lot of strong feelings in the past and I believe that is the reason that some feel it doesn't meet FA criteria. There is no reason to change that IMO and the article appears to be perfectly within FA quality standards. I too would like to hear any ideas on how the article can be improved. Maybe I'm missing something. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- For a twitter-sized explanation see the bold text in the FAR thingy. Penyulap talk 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead some other article should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It that other article should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
- I'm happy to suggest and support this, are you with me ? seriously, I have already said this a gazillion times,.Penyulap talk 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes.. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. As I already said, the phrase "largest space station ever constructed" already suggests that it's not the only one.. I'm not sure a concern about how much context the lead paragraph provides is enough reason to start a FAR? Mlm42 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy to suggest and support this, are you with me ? seriously, I have already said this a gazillion times,.Penyulap talk 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Bill Summary of NASA Authorization Act of 2010
- ^ de Selding, Peter (21 January 2011). "ESA Budget Rises to $4B as 14 Nations Boost Contributions". Spaceflight Now.
- ^ "Russian Federal Space Agency – Roscosmos | News". Federalspace.ru. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
- ^ http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2010/04/20100414_sac_fy22_2.pdf
- ^ "Csa – Faq'S". Asc-csa.gc.ca. 1 October 2007. Retrieved 13 June 2011.
- ^ Alan Boyle (25 August 2006). "What's the cost of the space station?". MSNBC. Retrieved 30 September 2008.
- ^ "How Much Does It Cost?". European Space Agency (ESA). 9 August 2005. Retrieved 27 March 2008.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ResProg
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Mars500 study overview". ESA. Jun 4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Charlie Bolden". www.space.com. Jun 4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Mars500 partners". ESA. Jun4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Tiangong I". Chinese Space Agency. Jun4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "China modular space station program officially initiated". Chinese Space Agency. Jun4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Chinese space Agency statement of international cooperation". Chinese Space Agency. Jun 4 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
heavens-above
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).