Talk:International Space Station/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

1st 2nd 3rd generations

I've added this :

The ISS is a 'third generation' or modular space station. Other examples of modular station projects include the Soviet/Russian MIR, Russian OPSEK, and Chinese Tiangong 3. The first space station, Salyut 1, and other one-piece or 'monolithic' first generation space stations, such as Salyut 2,3,4,5, DOS 2, Kosmos 557, Almaz and NASA's Skylab stations were not designed for re-supply. Each crew had to depart the station to free the only docking port for the next crew to arrive. Second generation station projects such as Salyut 6, 7 and Tiangong 1 feature a second docking port. Third generation stations are modular stations, this allows the mission to be changed over time, new modules can be added or removed from the existing structure, saving considerable costs and allowing greater flexibility.

The only part that is too new for me to find is suggesting that T-1 is 2nd G. But it's a fair and logical comparison. Comments / support / objections on wp:or for that particular sentence ? Penyulap _talk 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding Tiangong 1 has only one docking port. The debate as to weather it represents anything from docking target to space station seems to have settled on space laboratory module. The follow on Tiangong 2 'should' have 2 docking ports. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It has 2. There are plenty of 'reliable' internet sources that'll tell you there is one. Same as NASA will tell you all day long there are 8 solar panels, all evidence to the contrary. I actually have the user manual for the older Russian laptops on the ISS, but about the only thing that seems to keep people happy as far as the truth of a matter goes if if it's .gov so quoting Nasa on the occasions they are right, Esa or Rsa when it's required to refute Nasa, and in this case Csme seems to be the most resistant to further editing. There are other references I can try and find again for you, but I went with the one given as it's sort of twitter-sized, if it's too long + disputed, they don't bother to read the whole document. So when people want to tell you that it's just one, you can gently point out that .gov means it's a government website, and .cn means china, and china doesn't have to ask Nasa, Esa, or some big mouth commentator in the west for the OK to have 2 docking ports. It's their space program, and I'm pretty sure it's not funded and run by the western media. So it's two ports. Now as to the second part, what it is, that will depend upon the success of their mission objectives. They are not about to declare these to the western media, as you've no doubt seen, if a cosmonauts wrist watch alarm goes off when he's sitting beside a Nasa Astronaut in the Soyuz, it's flashed all over the western media outlets with headlines such as "narrow escape from imminent DOOM on 40 year old rickety Soyuz deathtrap". Thats why FOI requests on many working papers now fail in the USA, because the russians just won't tell the americans anything at all if it keeps up. So the chinese are naturally reticent on detail released to the west. If all goes well on the automated docking test, they will send up crew. Depending on how that goes, and how other parts of the program are coming along, they may well consider integrating it into the phase 3 heavy. But for now, it's qualified as the textbook definition of a space station. Genesis exists well in the lead as a prototype station, the difference between the two is bigelows is not designed for crew and this one is. People seem happy to go with the idea that if a rocket explodes on the pad it was still a rocket, so the success of the station is moot to it's definition. It has two ports, it can be resupplied, and mission objectives won't redefine Tiangong 1. So do as you please, and if it suits you, you can point out Csme is the final authority on the subject. It's also reasonably easy to write to the authors of the other sites and ask them to update their sites, it works more than 1/2 the time when I've done it. Penyulap _talk 03:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick with beer if you'll ease up on the caffeine. I don't dispute that you are far more versed and connected on these matters than I. I've read plenty of speculative reports of 2 ports and the idea of one Shenzhou docking and the crew leaving on another. That all seemed to me to have dried up with it's launch. There doesn't seem to have been any mention of a dual docking scheduled for it since. I'm not gonna disagree because as an amature terrestrial enthusiast I just plain don't know. I *hope* we'll see some video when Shenzhou 9 goes up, eh? And don't even get me started about ISS solar panels cuz everyone knows there's only four sets ;) Doyna Yar (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Very funny Scotty, now beam me my clothes" well, here is a lovely little camp video animation, which is clearly labeled Tiangong 1 天宫一 (in chinese, don't ask me about the rest though, my chinese language skills are woeful) You can see the main module with it's larger arrays similar to the FGB, and a first and second Shenzou docking to it, and the fly boys and fly gurls is sew ghey in thoze schpphandex jumpsuits captain. Can't hardly wait, the Chinese are flash with the cash, unrestricted budget. Penyulap _talk 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Node module / Nodal module fragmentation of articles due to changing SA plans

The new article for the current Node module is the one I wrote with the latest info I could find rather than change the older articles like UDM or Nodal, I didn't want to destroy those articles. It's part of a wider issue where the plans for modules are changed about before (or during) their construction. Many of the current modules of the station started life as something completely different. Ok, not cement mixer different, but different mission and function. The power supply for the ROS lab is still changing, it's been one module before, but is currently two science modules. As the plans are drafted, those plans are distinct, often have drawings and descriptions that vary greatly from one another, and I guess on one or two it's a bit confusing, if one module with a particular function, is actually the same module as a similar looking one on paper from a few years before, that did much the same purpose but had a different geometry. So we could go the way of having one article for a particular module and then have it's changing evolving plans each different from the last, like the MIR-2 section kind of thing, the module started off like this on a date, then changed on that day to something else. All of that was too much work for me, when I was looking at the UDM Nodal module and so forth, so I just thought, AH! well Node module is the current translated english name of the module and it's not actually taken, so I'll just pop it right there and make the redirects as required, and someone who wants to copy across can do as they wish if they wish, I see someone has changed redirects away from Node to Nodal, copied most of the new info from node module onto the Nodal module, and changed node to a redirect, the last one, the redirect was like so wrong that I changed it, cause that IS the english name. Well anyway, it's probably a good idea to have a look over this and see what's good and if there are any mistakes. Node module is I'm pretty sure the english name, if that's the case I'd think directing to that latest plan's article is good, and then if nodal module is the previous incarnation then it should probably go into node module article under 'origins' or history and so forth.

The same thing is the case with the power modules, there are scattered about a lot of articles about each of the proposals, all of them are kind of old, so it's like I haven't been bothered (with all the politics lately) to write a new article for the latest proposal or gather in the different articles for the older proposals and work them into a chronological list sort of article.

On the currency note,

I'm not much into nav templates, I had been looking toward maybe fixing those external links, but this nav template struck me as particularly out of date as it says part of the Kibō laboratory is "Flight-ready hardware with no launch plan"

So with the changing plans of modules, are we going for write the latest plan over the top of the older plans, or put them all in a list in one article, and if it's all too hard (yeah and it is) then how about just a new article for the latest plan and link to that ? (until someone is interested in working it all out) Penyulap _talk 12:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

life support diagram

The interactions between the components of the ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS)

Does this diagram help explain the text, when I take a good look, it's pretty weak, and text seems to do the job better. As an overview, it should be in the overview section as well. (alt text=A flowchart diagram showing the components of the ISS life support system. See adjacent text for details.) Penyulap _talk 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Any comments ? I think this one can be handled in the text, and the sub, and we'll have space for stronger pics. Penyulap _talk 15:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is noreason for this image to exist. Put it out of its misery! --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticsm

Following on from the previously explained problems with the Criticism section, there is some somewhat related material pending from User:Dodonov, as mentioned here. It does not address the problem however, but I mention it as it may help anyone interested in that section if I disappear (shot to death by ANI for example). Although, if someone does fix that section, I'll be happy enough to add Dodonov's work myself. Penyulap _talk 05:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is increasing

I am quite certain that there is an increase in vandalism lately and I'm pretty sure it's from my 5 partner approach (except for Canada, a.k.a 'who?') most of my edits are for the underdogs, and most of the readership is, what do they call it, (looking it up) Anglo-American, so I would see that the new information like China particularly, or maybe too much Soviet/Russian background is upsetting to readers. Not as bad as the use of 'being assembled' or 'completed' in the lead paragraph I think, but the vandalism baseline hasn't settled as the article hasn't settled either. As this is English Wiki and there are LOTS of Shuttle fans, I do hope that editors will help polish up the American parts, surely there are experts galore who can better assist editorially. Comments and observations are most welcome and invited. Penyulap _talk 14:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC) _{Not actually against Canada btw, there is the Robotics section I suggested, gave it a pic today, maybe I should turn up the Canadian volume there}

Trackers

1. (cur | prev) 23:18, 28 October 2011‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ m (181,456 bytes) (Reverted edits by Maikuru (talk) to last version by Ckatz) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 14:54, 28 October 2011‎ Maikuru (talk | contribs)‎ m (181,554 bytes) (→External links: Add ISSTracker to links) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 06:56, 28 October 2011‎ Ckatz (talk | contribs)‎ m (181,456 bytes) (Reverted edits by 66.55.206.86 (talk) to last version by Penyulap) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 19:03, 27 October 2011‎ 66.55.206.86 (talk)‎ (181,517 bytes) (→External links) (undo)

Hi Ckatz, I see that there is some problem with the inclusion of the iss tracker website ? Do you think including both or more might be a good idea, possibly some readers, this one (or two) can't find the links for the list of satellite trackers. I suspect that if one person (or 2) have gone to this much trouble there are probably others who can't bothered or don't know they can edit. The sightings section is rather well hidden now, I didn't lift it back into the TOC as another editor had moved it out. Maybe it needs to be more prominent ? Penyulap _talk 08:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree that the section should be more prominent. This is an encyclopedia not the yellow pages. The section needs to pe properly categorised with related content. As far as I can tell it belongs under the Orbit section. I realise this is not a perfect place to put it and if anyone has a better/different suggestion that would be great, but in absence of one, that's where Ill be moving it. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. There used to be a much more inclusive section of tracking websites, which I'm sure started to become overly cluttered. But there should be clear and formal decision made. Either no 3rd party links and allowing only links such as NASA's or the other agency's trackers, or we create a 3rd party tracker list of websites. It is unfair otherwise that a site like heavens-above can be listed but other's cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikuru (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maikuru, it does sound like fair reasoning, there is a article that has most of them in it called list of satellite trackers if you have not seen it, and I know lots of people haven't seen it, maybe we should put a link to that article into the external links section, so that all of them can be found. What do you think ? Penyulap _talk 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, we're not a link farm or a directory. Plus, based on Maikuru's comments, he/she is clearly involved in the operation of the site and is using this for promotional purposes. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's true I created and own ISSTracker. I'm not some giant corporate entity trying to make a ton of money off of it. I'm 1 person who had decided to create a tracker. It's been up and running for about 5 years now and has a decent following regardless of it being linked to in the wikipedia article. I also get feedback from people wishing they found the link in this article. If anyone can tell me that the site is not relevant and/or useful to people looking for the current location of the ISS please speak up.--Maikuru (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel that [User:Penyulap's] recommendation is good, but then Heavens-above and any other 3rd party site must also be held to this same standard [User_talk:Ckatz] is being hypocritical on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikuru (talk--Maikuru (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I have looked at the site, there doesn't seem to be anything commercial about it, it looks free. I think it is fine in the sub article, but if it came down to one, like either heavens-above or isstracker, I'd have to support Ckatz on this one. (what am I saying??!!?) Ckatz is right, I think the problem here is it's not as well known and notable as Heavens-above, but I honestly don't know as I haven't researched it for notability. Heavens-above is also free, but it does get plenty of mentions and press across the astronomy community. Heavens-above is also a lot more useful, I think the ISSTracker only has one function ?

That all said and done, the External links section was on my hitlist, there are a lot of things that should really be in there which aren't but I have been like not interested in working so much on wiki. But here is where I was going to start:

Actually I can't find it I might have deleted it, it was a list of stuff, starting off with each space agencies youtube channel. I'll have a look for it later. Any objections to the youtube channels for each agency ? Penyulap _talk 21:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Maikuru, there isn't anything wrong with the site, I think people are getting at we can't put everything in, but we can put in the most famous ones. Has your site been in the news ? If it has, I could look at links and assess them for you, maybe write up an article and that sort of thing. Ralf Vandebergh did what you are doing originally, he had inserted links to his work which got deleted cause nobody cared to look, I think it's worth a look. I am lazy though, and would appreciate your help, what I'd be looking for is places your mentioned in newspapers or magazines, or by space agencies and so forth. (I just had a look at Ralf's article it's actually grown since I started it off, cool !) Penyulap _talk 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

While it hasn't been the specific topic of an article several news agencies have used it for a reference location (unsolicitated I might add)BBC also on BBC on their side bar, http://www.alamogordonews.com/, CERN. I can add more, but I really don't want to go through 5 years of logs for articles it's been in.

Even if everyone concludes that heavens above is "best in bread" it still doesn't belong in the main article if others site's are being excluded.--Maikuru (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Man, that BBC site has an annoted image like I always wanted for the article, and suggested before. here. And they are using a NASA image, which means we could do the same image, but that image is not the best angle. The Soyuz stands on end.

Back on the topic, I think my vote by itself is somewhat meaningless, as there is more than one person removing it from the article. I personally don't mind and won't vote either way, it doesn't take up much real estate after all. Heavens-above is more notable though, some mentions give instructions on how to use the site. Universe today [1], some news site [2], some magazine/blog thing, there are lots of mentions, google clears a million hits on "www.heavens-above.com" but "www.isstracker.com" gets less than 5,000. If I may help you with my special skill, the way you could improve your sites useage and notability is to give it a killer-app. The one that I can think of off the top of my head which you could do, with your obvious skill as a programmer, in a weekend, (well, several) is to overlay the chinese and the ISS onto the one map. As far as I know, your site would be the only one. I haven't heard of it myself. It may give you the edge, as Chris Peat (heavens-above) doesn't' get into that sort of thing, and it's something people may well wish to see. Penyulap _talk 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask where you got your numbers from? This is whole thing is particularly annoying since my location calculations were good enough for NASA (Richard Garriott's mission) to use on the actual ISS, but isn't good enough for wikipedia. --Maikuru (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maikuru, the numbers are from google, just a wishy-washy way to gauge notability. Not the proper method I'm sure, but the calculations on your site I do not question at all, I expect they are as perfectly accurate as the elements that the algorithm is fed, that's not what my 'numbers' referred to at all. So what I was suggesting is your site is perfectly accurate and proper, but it is not as well-known amongst the astronomy and satellite watching communities as heavens-above. That's all. Penyulap _talk 12:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Move paragraph from exploration to International cooperation

I think this paragraph (or at least most of it) would be better placed in the Intenational cooperation section as opposed to the current location.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A 3D plan of the experimental complex, including the mock-up of the Martian surface (the brown module).

A Mars exploration mission may be a multinational effort involving space agencies and countries outside the current ISS partnership. In 2010 ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain stated his agency was ready to propose to the other 4 partners that China, India and South Korea be invited to join the ISS partnership. NASA chief Charlie Bolden stated in Feb 2011 "Any mission to Mars is likely to be a global effort". American legislation prevents its co-operation on space projects with China. Between 2007 and 2011, the space agencies of Europe, Russia and China carried out the ground-based preparations in the Mars500 project, which complement the ISS-based preparations for a manned mission to Mars. China launched its own space station in September 2011, and has officially initiated its programme for a modular station. China has indicated a willingness to cooperate further with other countries on manned exploration. Sergey Krasnov, the head of human space flight programmes for Russia's space agency, Roscosmos, in 2011 suggested a "shorter version" of Mars 500 may be carried out on the ISS.

---

U5K0 is the above text yours ? it's not signed ? Penyulap _talk 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ups. Yes, it is. Sorry about that.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

---

It could go in either one really. I was looking to have them somewhat similar sized, giving the article a somewhat consistent section size. The purpose of the ISS still needs explaining, so it's good if other stuff is added to that section to replace what dissappears. Penyulap _talk 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Orbital altitude graph update

I've managed to digg up old screen grabs from heawensabove of ISS altitude and integrate them but I don't know how to put it together with the existing graph and make it look good. Here's my rough draft compound image. Can someone help? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Too hard basket for me, I just opened it up on my computer and hmph. I'd suggest possibly tracing it and scanning it if you need to. There is a wikipedia graphics lab, they may or may not assist I'm not sure, just get the line done nicely and I can add text to it myself if you like. Also if there are any problems for copyright don't worry I got the okily-dokily from Chris Peat from heavens-above to copy any image I like from his site. The guy is cool with that sort of thing and answers his emails. I have a generic 'use what you like' email from him but can get another one if anyone asks. The line is the hard part. I'll add text for half a dozen languages or so. Penyulap _talk 14:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

which bit needs the cite ?

The first space station, Salyut 1, and other one-piece or 'monolithic' first generation space stations, such as Salyut 2,3,4,5, DOS 2, Kosmos 557, Almaz and NASA's Skylab stations were not designed for mid mission re-supply.[citation needed]

It's a complex sentence, which bit needs the cite. Also if there were both all the cites required for each station, plus links through to those articles, wouldn't that be overkill ? The sentence has been changed since I wrote it, I had said the simpler "not designed for re-supply." Penyulap _talk 03:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing the info box "Crew" to six and to keep there until crew size is increased to seven

My reasoning is because at this moment (without reading very deep into the main article) it looks like the ISS nominally has a crew of three. So I believe we should we should permanently have six listed under the "Crew" section of the infobox and just mention in the introductory article that there are however many members currently aboard.--Craigboy (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Or we could just say 3 to 6 or Up to 6.. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• support six is where they are at presently for expeditions, it'll hold true for most of the time. (like the clock that is right once a day is better than the clock right twice a day) some things like Mass need more of an explanation then just a number really. I changed Mass to an estimate, with an explanation in the article, and it seems to be fine afaik. Anyhow, I'd think there are a huge number of things you can put there, many choices that are correct. Unmanned operation is possible, 2 is the safe minimum, 7 is planned, more are accommodated for brief periods 14 ? 15 ? can't remember, it's on the list of firsts/milestones page on wiki. You could put it as "expedition size 6"/"crew size 6" that is the size of the expeditions, that is i think what your after. myself I'd like the safe minimum and the autonomous op mentioned, but like, meh. 3 is crap. misleading, change it, or qualify it like (half of current expedition) (remaining half arrives 12/12/11) or so forth. 6 is the current setup and crew size. (and don't let reality get in the way, rather, explain reality instead)
• "Crew size 6, 3 onboard." and link to the expedition page
• "Crew 2-6 (capable of autonomous operation)."
• "Crew 2-7" would stand the test of time, like when the article is printed out somewhere, it'll be correct in 20 years, but 3 sucks 5 minutes from now, you are right. Penyulap _talk 14:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• How about we just change the paramater to crew capacity and say 7? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How bout fixing the lede as priority? I can't do all of it, pressing matters in RL, I have written out the problems though, to help anyone who is concerned. Penyulap _talk 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I like ""Crew size 6, 3 onboard." and link to the expedition page". I'm against saying seven because the ISS partners have yet to begun to have seven member expeditions. - Craigboy

As far as I'm concerned that's fine. Go for it. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 14:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Craigboy, how about this talkpage thingy ? 'I can't believe it's not a forum'

Extended content

(insert) This section discusses (or at least tries to) the 'China' section here and it's differences to the previous version, say, here and the diff herePenyulap talk 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC) "clone" is a weasel word, besides being just plain wrong. The Chinese bought the Russian system. -Penyulap Do you have a source for that? Craigboy (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) They share stuff quite openly and officially. I'm not seeing the need for the derogatory remark there, it's misleading readers into thinking it's a copyright violation.-Penyulap what has the "International Docking System Standard" or the "NASA Docking System" got to do with China ? At best your pushing it right up the American centric policy violation path, and that's best case scenario. -Penyulap No.Craigboy (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Like I said nobody cares that America is converting to the 'non compatible' system, because there is more to the ISS than the United states orbital segment. -Penyulap Of course there is but Shenzhou could only dock to USOS.Craigboy (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Right now, nothing docks to the USOS. it's like a godzilla siamese twin that grabs aeroplanes and smudges them onto it's chest. All docking is on the Russian segment. Are the Russians throwing out their russian docking rings? -Penyulap Are you referring to the Hybrid docking mechanism?Craigboy (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Are they dumping Kurs ? well, they are upgrading it actually. Where else could the Chinese possibly consider docking politically than the ROS ? everyone docks at the ROS. It's one big happy family over there, it's where the party is at. The Russians, Chinese and Europeans are having a where going to mars party. Penyulap talk 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I responded to what you wrote before you re-edited this section, see above. Also I removed redundancies with your above remarks.Craigboy (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I propose that the lead be changed as follows:

The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in low Earth orbit. The ISS follows Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, Mir, Genesis as the latest space station launched. The ISS serves as a microgravity and space environment research laboratory in which crew members conduct experiments in biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology and other fields. The station is uniquely suited for the testing of the spacecraft systems and equipment required for possible missions to the Moon and Mars. The station is expected to remain in operation until at least 2020, and potentially to 2028. Some parts of the ISS are expected to be integrated into the planned russian OPSEK facility before the remainder is deorbited. Like many artificial satellites, the ISS can be seen from Earth with the naked eye. The ISS is operated by Expedition crews, and has been continuously staffed since 2 November 2000—an uninterrupted human presence in space for the past 24 years and 7 days. As of November 2011, the crew of Expedition 29 is aboard.

The ISS combines the Japanese Kibō laboratory with three space station projects, the Soviet/Russian Mir-2, the American Freedom, and the European Columbus. Budget constraints led to the merger of these projects into a single multi-national programme. The ISS is a third generation modular space station. Like Mir, it consists of pressurised modules, external trusses, solar arrays and other components which have been launched by Russian Proton rockets, American space shuttles, and Russian Soyuz rockets. The station is maintained in orbit between 278 km (173 mi) and 460 km (286 mi) altitude, and travels at an average ground speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour (17,227 mph), completing 15.7 orbits per day.

The ISS is a joint project between five participating space agencies, the American NASA, the Russian RKA, the Japanese JAXA, the European ESA, and the Canadian CSA. The ownership and use of the space station is established by intergovernmental treaties and agreements. The station is serviced by Soyuz spacecraft, Progress spacecraft, the Automated Transfer Vehicle and the H-II Transfer Vehicle, and has been visited by astronauts and cosmonauts from 15 different nations.

Also, why has the exploration section become an essay on international mars related stuff and china? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment

Extended content

"The exploration section became an essay on international mars related stuff and china?" on account of the article kind of is an essay, plus, that's like what I could find out. I'd love to see some lunar planning stuff in there but I can't find another article to summarize into this one, or stuff out there, shrug, it's sparse, I'll support anything you can add for exploration, I think there is a lot of unmanned stuff going on, but I can't find what connects that to the ISS. I can only find stuff connecting Mars500 to the ISS, and like china is involved with that, what can we do ? ignore them ? summarize one side ? exploration is the purpose of the ISS. Mars is the only stuff i can find that connects two things, the purpose of the ISS and exploration, please add anything else you can find. The lead always summarizes the article, and there is a division running through lots of parts of the article, and the station, and everything really, between the ROS and the USOS, so I kind of put the explanation in there, where could it go instead, suggestions welcome. It would have to be explained in each of the sections that are split, that is, origins, structure, systems, operations and politics. I see three space stations doesn't change, although I'd certainly support two I guess, either way, however people like it. Columbus is like the current Tiangong, it doesn't really go big on life support, so some people define them as a space station and some don't really. But it's all good, better than before, but either way. I see you propose dropping the mention of the well developed third generation station projects and comparing only MIR. I see that it's a 'launched yet' thing, well Tiangong has orbital hardware and so does opsek, I can't see the problem with mentioning these two well developed partly in orbit projects which are also mentioned in the article in several places. Also you make a mistake where you say it's like MIR, it's not. You're wrong where you say "Like Mir, it consists of pressurised modules, external trusses, solar arrays and other components which have been launched by Russian Proton rockets, American space shuttles, and Russian Soyuz rockets." I don't like that at all. Not one bit. Where you suggest "Some parts of the ISS are expected to be integrated into the planned russian OPSEK facility before the remainder is deorbited." I think it sounds like OPSEK will have a base block out there first and they'll more things across to it, but I haven't seen plans like that, they have to change orbital inclination, sure, even if there was a base block separate for the job and the transfer, it makes sense it would come to the ISS first, I expect it will use it's own engines at the time of separation for the job, I haven't seen anything to the contrary. I love the changes to the exploration bit, BRILLIANT, "The station is uniquely suited for the testing of the spacecraft systems and equipment required for possible missions to the Moon and Mars." is proper and accurate, I like your wording better. "The ISS serves as a microgravity research laboratory in which crew members conduct experiments in biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology and other fields." I'm not so hot on as MG is only one of the two thingys for the ISS, and that wording makes it seem like it's the only thing. It's not as precise, it's ignoring the space environment, all of the labs have external platforms and attachment places for experiments in the space environment, so I don't like that part really. "The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in low Earth orbit. The ISS follows Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, Mir, Genesis as the latest space station launched." I don't like that either because bigelows stuff is not space station stuff at all. no life support, zero, it's like 1/3 the size of what he proposes for a real one, he never meant it for humans to visit, there are like some experiments up there, although I'm sure the cockroaches and ants are all dead by now, but they aren't space stations and that sentence makes them look like they are. I like it the other way. Plus I like 11th rather than latest, because if it gets printed onto a wikipedia CD or printed into a book or something, it sucks after opsek or phase 3 heavy get launched or separated. So there'd be a russian or chinese station that was the 'latest' and that kids CD or book or whatever would suck more than it really needs to, but 11th would always be true.

Penyulap _talk 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So does anyone else want to add anything before this is put in? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the Dec 18 2011 lede

• "The International Space Station (ISS) is a space station in low Earth orbit." This part loses the definition of a space station, but replaces it with fluff. We may as well state that 'the International Space Station is a Space Station that is International' LEO is still there, but any other useful information for the reader is lost. Re-iteration is no substitute for definition.
  • Good point. The language about it being a habitable satellite should be added.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The ISS is more closely related to "Space Station" than it is to "Satelite". See Contextual links-Craigboy
      • Would anyone object to saying something along the lines of: The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable artificial satellite, or space station, in low Earth orbit.
        • Lose the 'space station' idea, your heading along the track to the sentence "the international space station is the international space station" which is not a definition. Look back through the archives for the dictionary definitions, it's a habitable artificial satellite or some such. Just define it. (and note it already has the most popular definition already. I can't see the need to tell people it's a space station, the title give it away. telling them what a space station is, is more useful, and something of a fashion in the encyclopedia world. If you mean as well, I guess thats cool if you think it adds readability, but I'd get a few opinions on that, and I'll stay out of it myself.Penyulap _talk 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Craigboy, the ISS differs to all of the articles given as examples in contextual links, the ISS contains the 'space station' part of the definition within it's own name, rendering that part of the definition unnecessary. A link, or links to the space station article is however needed, there is plenty of room within the first paragraph for that. Penyulap _talk 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Done.Craigboy (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• "modular structure" cool, but too close to the top if the lede is written either for descending importance or as a reflection of the article's body.
  • I don't think it's either. As I understand it, it's just supposed to give a basic description of the subject in a concise and simple way. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Since then it has been routinely visited by cargo and human spacecraft, who supplied and constructed it." 'plus supplied and constructed' should be 'constructed and supplied' for logical ordering, but this sentence is weak on factual information.
  • The change in sequence seems in order. Do you have an idea regarding the factual information? We could add the number of cargo and human missions and perhaps the number of different people or something similar.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that adds useless busywork for other editors, it dates quickly. only add numbers if you intend to update them yourself all the time. in print it would be like 5 minutes and it's wrong. those kinds of tallies always stink of decay in this article. Penyulap _talk 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "As of November 2011[update], the crew of Expedition 29 is aboard." Although it's been in there for ages, it should probably be squeezed out as it becomes dated immediately in wikipedia's static forms like print, maybe we can move it down the article.
  • Agreed.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Some parts of the ISS are expected to be integrated into the planned Russian OPSEK facility before the remainder is deorbited." brilliant. ("expected" has room for improvement, but I can't think of an alternate). A little weak on describing the construction of OPSEK. It could exist separately in orbit before End-of-mission according to this version.
  • We can have OPSEK be a link and people can get a more expancive description there.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The ISS is a synthesis of four space station projects, the Soviet/Russian Mir-2, the American Freedom, the Japanese Kibō laboratory, and the European Columbus.Wrong, Wrong, Wrong read the article.
  • How about: The ISS is a synthesis of three space station projects, the Soviet/Russian Mir-2, the American Freedom and the European Columbus, augmented with Canadian robotics and the Japanese Kibō laboratory.?--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The wording right now is quite poor, it says the three projects and then rattles them off, but it reads as a longer list, like there were more than three. It's better to separate the other items from the list of three, now, it's like the iss combines 1, 2 and 3 and 4 and 5. it's better to say the ISS combines 1 and 2 with 3, 4 and 5. Or to say it algebraically you've got ISS = 3ssp(1+2+3+4+5) whereas you do better with ISS = 4+5 + 3SPP(1+2+3). OR, if I can express that as a song,..... umm, maybe not. Penyulap _talk 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Like Mir, it consists of pressurised modules, external trusses, solar arrays and other components which have been launched by Russian Proton and Soyuz rockets, and the American Space Shuttles. Wrong One of many factually incorrect implications is the NASA shuttle delivered external trusses to MIR. "Like" is subtly, but significantly, different to 'comparable'.
  • How about: Like Mir, it consists of pressurised modules, external trusses, solar arrays and other elements. These ISS components have been launched by American Space Shuttles as well as Russian Proton and Soyuz rockets.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I give up. The American shuttle didn't bring anything to MIR except what it needed to dock to MIR, no external trusses... whatever, someone else can do this. Penyulap _talk 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• "average ground speed of 27,724 kilometres per hour" needs to be converted to a range as the altitude is expressed as a range. whatever.
  • I don't know what that means. Sorry.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The ground speed is inversely proportional to altitude, if one changes the other does. If one is expressed as a range, so too the other must be. Like this, if you say 'the room is maintained at a temperature of 10-20 degrees C / 50 degrees F.' If one is a range the other needs to be too. If one is a single value, the other can be too. -Penyulap

• The lede LACKS CONTEXT. Policy, (not essays), require context in the lede. Is the ISS the only space station in the history of the universe ? You'd be none the wiser after reading this lede. Penyulap _talk 15:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true but it has to be better than what used to be there. We could say something like: The ISS is the N-th purpuse built space station to be inhabited. It has been continuously occupied for over X years having exceeded the previous record of Z years held by Mir in 2011. The station is also the largest facility of its kind ever built. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats fine, put it how you want it. I figured that the single clear easily understood word 'launched' was best, but go for it, inhabited or what you like. Probably stay away from 'success' or 'successfully' they get attacked by people with differing opinions. Just get the context back in there. The ISS is not the only space station that ever existed. Put it into context amongst other space stations. The way it was was simplest I thought, and has been expanded on in the article. I totally do not agree with the idea that it is better, it has far too many mistakes now Penyulap _talk 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As per your request here I'll re-implement the parts that have no problem, for example, you've taken out "follows the Salyut, Almaz, Skylab and Mir as", but hey, wasn't that part of your original proposed new lede here ? You've never said you don't want it before, and presto, it's gone, how come ? Anyhow It's been there ages and people seem cool with it, I fully support it and ask that you have at least one other editor agree with you that it should be removed first. So I support your original proposal, the way it's been for ages, it gives good context and summarizes the article, and explains the 9th thing too. Your next two edits I totally agree with too. Much better wording, and I agree with you and 173.79.120.208 about dumping the words uniquely and so forth. I think "Comparable space station projects include MIR, OPSEK and Tiangong 3." should be left in, as a citation can be found for it as 84.41.86.38 requests. It would easily be a fair summary of a number of sources I've seen. But I might be cool with it's removal if you can give a good reason ? I'll replace it with "Other modular" rather than "Comparable" if needed. "The station is divided into two sections, the Russian orbital segment (ROS) and the United States orbital segment, which is shared by many nations." this is a fair summary of the article and is required as the article refers to the ROS and USOS many times. I've explained this already, please bring a third opinion on this one as the article is an inexplicable mess without it. It was cn'd which wasn't necessary, it was mentioned in the FARC that the lede doesn't need cites as they can go in the main body of the article, but I'll be happy for it to be cited as is where is, seems people love cites in the lede, no matter how blatant the rest of the article is in explaining a lead point. Penyulap _talk 02:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Craigboy, how about this talkpage thingy ? (originalflavour)

Extended content

Those ref's your going on are rubbish refs from the start. Please expand on this.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) John Cook, Valery Aksamentov, Thomas Hoffman, Wes Bruner, that one, it's looking a great deal like someones homework, it's not, of course, but it's all the same process, cut'n'paste, a few handmade diagrams by the author, some focused research, but nothing at all about china. Nothing. What has he got in front of him when he did his homework ? he has a few books, one of them is Russian, the rest are all American, and he has Nasa on the 'net and relies heavily on that. -penyulap NASA documents are very realiable.Craigboy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Enough said. I personally think it can't withstand the test of examination, happy to let everyone comment on this document I think it's cut'n'paste homework, his list of refs are NASA heavy, one Russian book, and nothing Chinese. So I can't see that as justification for 'clone'. Penyulap talk 20:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) So where is he getting any info on the Chinese ? he hasn't actually got any info at all about how they got the Russian docking system, which Russia actually handed over. Do you can a source for that?Craigboy (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC) He just labels it a clone and moves on, no cite, no nothing. no thank you. We can use that ref for a lot of things, it's awesome, but not for China. Penyulap talk 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The other ref doesn't appear to call it a clone, so I'm suggesting that it's a few people at the bottom of the food chain with no information on china calling it a clone. I'm saying that the pdf is not a decent ref. The second ref is pretty typical nasa/american stuff, they are looking at photos of the chinese stuff and guessing what they are looking at. It's all gossipy reading out chinese newspapers, quoting 'commentators', that sort of thing. I can't see the point, the chinese and russian sources are better. They know what they are doing and don't need to guess, so lets just quote them where possible.Penyulap talk 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Can you link me to the Russian source? And if its not a clone than why would it be able to dock with APAS?Craigboy (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC) And what the americans are doing on their section is irrelevant. the APAS are Russian. not american. They are all over the station not just on the USOS. There is one on ROS. It connects Zarya to Unity, and thus cannot be used for visting vehicles (nor has it ever). The only open APAS docking mechanisms are on PMA-2 and PMA-3, which are part of USOS.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) No automated docking is possible at present on the USOS, so any supposed docking to that section will require new hardware to be sent up. Which means you can just as easily send up new hardware, such as slapping a new collar on the node module, You cannot "slap a collar on", a docking adapter would have to be developed. This means it is not compatible with ROS. Craigboy (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC) so there is nothing to 'prevent' docking to the ROS and nothing to 'allow' docking to the USOS. The conversation is getting messy this way, and confuses me, I'll answer below, below both sections, can I try to tidy up or you tidy up and make one section from the two, and collapse too possibly. Penyulap talk 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Are you claiming Shenzhou is not capable of manually docking?Craigboy (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC) APAS is the root term for the entire family of Russian docking mechs, and the american and chinese and euro mechs which are all branches from that, afaik. No. The APAS family consists of APAS-75, 89 and 95. Although typically the term APAS is used to describe APAS-89/95 (APAS-75 is a very different, non-compatible mechanism). Americans used the APAS-95, these mechanisms were purchased from Energiya and integrated into the Shuttle's Orbital Docking System and onto the PMAs by Boeing. The Russians use the mostly unrelated Probe and Drogue system, the Europeans use the same mechanism to dock their ATV.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) what the americans are doing ? who cares ? seriously. the USOS has nothing to do with it. USOS has everything to do with it because the Sheznhou could only dock with the USOS section.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The americans dock to the USOS. Nobody else does. zip zilch. obsolete already. The Chinese use ships quite similar to the Russians and Europeans, they dock themselves. Nothing on the USOS ever supports automatic anything, it's all robot arms and manual shuttle dockings. Although this is irrelevant, the new docking system (NDS) supports automated docking. The only place the chinese will even consider docking if they are invited is the ROS. Their docking mechanism isn't compatible with the ones used on ROS. The Chinese could fly exact replicas of the Soyuz spacecraft but still wouldn't be able to dock if it didn't have the right docking mechanism. It'll never happen, but that's the place they would if they could, because that's the place all the autodockings are made, and all the docking collars are proper. Anything the Americans are coming up with themselves, well, they'll be the only ones who use it nasa and it's commercial carriers that's all. Everyone else goes Russian. (well jaxa doesn't do dockings as yet). Penyulap talk 17:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC) "Everyone else" is only ESA. JAXA has no intentions of docking to the station, if they did than the ISS partners would loose the large hatch diameter that berthing allows. The United States is responsible for transporting JAXA and ESA astronauts to the station since their modules are a portion of the USOS side, currently the United States is paying Russia for their transportation to the ISS. After Commercial Crew comes online, Soyuz will only be transporting Russian astronauts.Craigboy (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Russian Cosmonauts, European Astronauts, and Japanese Astronauts. but cn, as they often swap about a bit too, an american or two via soyuz and a russian in the shuttle, didn't they do that now and then too? Its hard to explain because of the barter system used on the ISS but Commercial Crew will responsible for transporting NASA, JAXA and ESA astroanuts.Craigboy (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Everyone else as far as docking is ESA for now, and yes they use different docking systems at this moment. The Russians are totally into giving assistance and working with other nations, they are doing it in the past present and future to a huge degree. Your saying that the only place that the Chinese could possibly dock is the USOS, I'm so totally cn right there as it defies all commonsense and every source I've ever seen. Penyulap talk 18:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Where is APAS used on ROS anywhere besides Zarya forward? If you can, could you show me on this image.Craigboy (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I know they purchased the APAS system from the Russians, I'll look for a ref for you. They signed an agreement in 1996 I think. I'll be waiting.Craigboy (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC) 'Clone' is one guy (or one paper), far down on the 'food chain', that is, it's not the official statement of anyone, and it has no Chinese sources at all listed. Penyulap talk 19:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Why would China admit to illegally using APAS? Craigboy (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I won't ask you to point out where on the USOS automated docking is supported. I think we can both agree that new hardware is required, I do not.Craigboy (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) and that this tp is becoming a bit forumish ? I think the original point was the original design, the Shenzhou were designed to be able to dock with the ISS (and co-incidentally with the Nasa shuttle) however, none of that will ever happen because America is so disagreeable, with the new laws on top of old and so forth. In the article I haven't actually suggested where they would dock, only that they were originally designed to be able to. Penyulap talk 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC) As stated before they could only dock with the USOS, this won't be possible after those mechanisms have adapters placed over them for NDS.Craigboy (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC) The refs I have so far recalled are more likely to open a can of worms in other places, lots of worms. One ref that doesn't get anyone into trouble would be Russia and China signing spacey deals, it's mentioned here but I'll still look for better, so as not to need too many worms. Please do keep in mind however I am not trying to tease anyone here, I have only stated in the article that Shenzhou is capable of docking with the station. I have completely stayed out of where, and never added anything to the article to indicate where. My assertion is 'clone' has nefarious connotations that are unwarranted. Penyulap talk 02:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC) But if the docking mechanisms are covered, as planned than the statement the "Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible in the future." is not entirely true.Craigboy (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Well, what is required that they don't have ? the rendezvous system is about it, yes ? Well they pop those in on spacewalks all the time, so would it be a fair statement to say "With minimal modifications the Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible in the future." ? or there abouts ? Penyulap talk 07:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Sorry, wasn't following precisely, your saying the ports will be reconfigured, but what would they do with the old adaptors ? stow them I expect. So the statement would be something like (assuming a manual docking) "Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible in the future...unless the USOS is modified in the future and becomes incompatible." how about "Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible" it would be correct, yes ? because modifications or de-orbiting would of course effect that, but for the time being it'd be correct ? rm'd 'in the future' as it's still ref'd that way and would be more precise. Penyulap talk 07:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) The new adaptors are being placed over the old ones, see here. Obviously if the the ISS is deorbited than Shenzhou would not be able to dock with it, what is not obvious is that the docking mechanisms that Shenzhou is compatible with are planned to be inaccessible by 2015.Craigboy (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC) That article is ok I guess, the Androgyny section could use a better explanation, but meh. I dumped some stuff into the section about docking to dead ships/stations, cause it was just so crap and WRONG. Needs some polish now, as I didn't delete anything, just added a nice read which could be trimmed, but that article is very short and could use some meat on it's bones. Anyhow "the Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible in the future" still isn't too bad because it's correct. Even if the docking adapters never existed in the first place, the statement is still true. Even if there was no USOS, the statement is still true. You see what I mean ? It could happen, doesn't mean it will, it doesn't rule out or rule in any possibilities, sure we could endlessly qualify it like "the Shenzhou spacecraft could to dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible in the future, so long as the station is not deorbited first, or has it's budget cut, or the APAS's are covered, mangled, sold, ejected, stolen by Ivan Ivanovich, america doesn't declare war on china, ESA doesn't declare martial law on columbus" and so forth. It's just that it's a correct statement as is, plus, short and sweet. I'm very happy that what you are saying is correct, and belongs somewhere with other future maybe plans, however it has little to do with china because the docking is already tenuous at best, and so not going to happen in the next few years, and if it does, they will need to prepare anyway. So where is the article that outlines a hypothetical docking to the ISS to tell us where it is or isn't ? It's pretty much all speculation and too far out on a limb to outline such hypothetical within the China section, better to just mention the hypothetical possibility of docking as a point of interest and move on with the now and is. The location of the hypothetical docking would be subject to political pressures, like if ESA and RSA forced america to agree, by no longer provisioning services like transport, then it would be ROS docking, but if the US and China made up it would be an american module docking, and so forth, hardware would be provisioned to reflect the nature of the political decision. This is all too much for the talkpage to bear I think, shall we continue on our talkpages please ? Penyulap talk 01:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I wasn't asking your opinion on the article. The statement is only correct until the 2015/2016 time frame, the Chinese system is only compatible with the USOS side, I'm reverting your edits for the section.Craigboy (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Costs

The section has not been accurate for more than a year, to say the least, and actually there is no prospect of it being updated. There are no sources to give a total figure for the ISS, not anything beyond a unsubstantiated guess anyhow. Rather than pull the $100 billion guess out over and over until the end of time, which simply cannot be correct because the cost of the station is ever-increasing, a different approach is to consider it as not notable, and unreferenced. Nobody on wiki or in the outside world, any agency or media outlet, has done the sums for the station beyond the static guess mentioned. The cost for different space agency programs can go into those articles and so forth, but the cost of the ISS as a whole is citation impossible (most likely). The overall cost of the station must be ever-increasing. Some of the costs to some of the agencies can be found, but a total figure is so wishy-washy it can't have a whole section to itself really. Maybe a paragraph or a one-liner "people always say the ISS costs $100billion and that hasn't increased since 2004?" within some other section if required... Penyulap _talk 01:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem but it may be hard to find a more accurate figue that isn't original research.Craigboy (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I can't see it ever being a good section. There is the occasional 'most expensive station' which is no doubt so true as not to need a major ref, but I'll give three barnstars to anyone who can find a running total. I'd say scrap the whole costs idea altogether. But we could easily do a comparison on agency spending on an annual basis, that information I/we could find, it'd be nice and up to date, but a total spent so far, thats different altogether. Like maybe some researcher will look at it after the end of the ISS. But it can't be found, and is it really needed as a question that needs an answer that can't be given ? Lets fill that real estate with better quality stuff, nice to read, well ref'd. Penyulap _talk 14:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

here is a relevant ref if ever someone wants to attempt the impossible. [3] Penyulap _talk 14:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Crew

I think it would be interesting if something like "List of ISS crew" was introduced with a section here providing more general statistics. Individual lines of the list would provide information on what the person did while on board the ISS. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• That sounds like a ridiculous amount of work. Glad to see you volunteer. :-P Seriously though, if you decide to do it, drop me a note. I'll try to pitch in. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are main article links to List of International Space Station expeditions and List of human spaceflights to the ISS is there a way to make them more prominent ? also, there is so far nothing in this article about space tourism really. It needs coverage and has been on my private list of things to do for ages. What kind of format would help people find the list of crew ? It's possibly not sufficient as it is, does anyone else besides these two editors have trouble finding this info quickly, or have ideas ? As it is there is other information to outline expeditions, like how the Russians always send an experienced space traveler with every newbie to space travel. Like the Obi-wan / Luke / yoda thing. It's touching. Plus of course space tourism (they hate to be called tourists btw, they HATE it. but TOURISTS complain about trivial things like that, you TOURISTS 8-P ) Penyulap _talk 04:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

China tangent

Can someone explain to me why this, already lengthy, article contains a China section, most of which has little if any direct relevance to the ISS? I can understand having a paragraph about the China connection in the Politics section but how is it reasonable to have it in separate section where the general state of Chinese space cooperation is discussed, the details of the US legislative blockade described and, for some esoteric reason, even the Chinese participation in Phobos-Grunt mentioned? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 01:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• If the Phobos-Grunt co-operation to mars (where the ISS/space station projects are leading) thing irritates you, by all means kill it, I am probably too far into the future at the moment. You know, where all the "The station is suited for the testing of spacecraft systems and equipment required for missions to the Moon and Mars." stuff is leading. maybe we need to wait until OPSEK is about to be separated, something like that part of the articles timeline to go from the origin to the near future, so it's more acceptable like the near to present launch table and so forth. Anyhow, can't summarize the present when it's too far into the future is what I get from that. But you've been a bit off track with some of the article lately, so I'm not sure it's such a big problem, it may well be a little bit out there, but the ROS USOS thing wasn't. I'd leave it to someone else if I were you, but I won't put it back myself, so do as you wish.Penyulap _talk 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The ROS/USOS thing is an unsourced statement in the lede which has now been chalanged. I'm fine with giving people time to find a good source for it, but as of now, I don't have a solid understanding of this OS business and since it hasn't been sourced, I'm uncomfortable with having it in the lede (or anywhere else, but particularly in the lede). --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 08:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, given that there should be some due weight in the article, one would assume that the actual ISS partners would get at least as prominent a section as China, which has no role in the program that I'm aware of. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 01:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the partners are mentioned in the article, but I completely support you and think adding more, in separate sections about each partner is cool. what kind of flavor are you thinking of? or is it more just to cut and chop china ? I think that it's addressing the 'elephant in the room' where lots of people wonder why on earth isn't China part of the program, especially when ESA and others are saying they WANT china to be part of the program. you know, educational, I got the idea from the queries from other editors, as well as research too. Someone asked a NASA guy if China would be bringing american crew to the ISS sometime. The NASA spokesman was like dismissive 'who knows' sort of thing. But there is a lot of discussion out there. I mean, they are up there and all, I think a Chinese manned craft passed within a hairs breadth of the station not long ago. So it's like people want to know, they could dock, how come they don't dock. Penyulap _talk 02:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • That's all wery well and good. I think it's insane that china isn't in the program and that its modules aren't part of the ISS. This, however does not change the fact that it isn't part of the program. As I say above, certainly give an account of why it isn't in the program and who wants it in, but it's hardly justifyable to also include stuf like P-G and anything more than a very brief description of the relationship between china and the ISS partners. International cooperation in space is an interesting topic in its own right and should probubly have its own article on Wikipedia, but it's not the subject of this one, which is why we should only present a narrow view of cooperation fucussed on the ISS. If someone is interested in starting an article on Inernational cooperation in space I would be glad to help out, so... drop me a note.

• • I forgot to mention, I'm OK with the china section as it exists now. Thanks for the rewrite. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 08:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The claim that Shenzhou uses APAS was unsourced and the claim that Shenzhou could dock to the ISS in the future is only true until the 2015/2016 time frame.Craigboy (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I was only bringing up the issue regarding the fact that a number of statements in the section were unreasonably off topic. This now seems to be resolved. Any potential other issues should be discussed. I would only suggest that a detailed account of ISS docking hardware would be more appropriate placed in the docking section. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 08:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

For a moment I was going to ask what's pg, you mean Phobos Ground, I wasn't against examples of close co-operation on space/mars stuff, it illustrates the close working relationship, but I'm happy to leave it out at your request too. good to hear your happy with the rest. I think it's rather nice myself. People did get to asking about that sort of thing a bit, now they have a clue in that direction. About the modules, the last thing that you'd want is to join the ISS if you were China, there is absolutely nothing to offer as far as US-Chinese 'co-operation' goes, and plenty of downside. But OPSEK will be China friendly no problems. Yeah, it'll be a typical Russian MIR party where everyone is invited. Penyulap _talk 08:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Much of the section is speculation and original synthesis. I would suggest that it be removed, in its entirety, and replace with a brief note in another section that China is not a partner. The sentence about Europe being ready to work with them should probably be retained too. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • The US legislative matter should remain in some form as well. I don't understand how the section in its current condition could be desribed as anything other than well sourced and relevant. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I see what WDGraham was worried about, looking at the timing it was like 30 mins before he mentioned, I've fixed the problem. It's nice stuff, but it doesn't belong in that section. Penyulap _talk 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it to be a weird tangent as well, and even within it the section goes off on how NASA has changed the docking systems and made the systems available in the public domain.. Interesting and useful for the main article but what does it really have to do with China? And China itself.. it just says they were interested but now are not involved, there are laws now that keep China from participating with the U.S. in space.. all interesting but only tangently related and only as "they're not involved." Cs302b (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement that Penyulap wants in the article is "[the] Shenzhou spacecraft could dock at the International Space Station if it becomes politically feasible." but this is not entirely true which is why there was an extensive explanation of when this would be possible and when its not the new docking mechanism will be in the public domain so China could (and its hoped that they do) copy this new standard and regain capability to dock to the station if they so desire.Craigboy (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry about the NASA stuff, it's removed because it's anti-NPOV, describing Russian docking system as if it only exists to serve america (growl Craigboy), plus off topic.
  • In no way is it anti-NPOV. Why are you unable to comprehend that China's docking system is only compatible with the USOS side?Craigboy (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • It's fine to say the APAS family is only incorporated on the USOS, cool, I totally agree with you, it is the only place to dock using that system, 100% same page here. what I'm a little concerned about is presenting the APAS family as invented just for the space shuttle, which wasn't the original intention of the designer. (craigboy, when you cut into my text like this can you please add -penyulap to my text so people know that it was my text you are cutting into, you make the page confusing)
      • The article never stated or inferred that. The Space Shuttle was only mentioned because if the Space Shuttle did not use it than there would be no other reason to have that docking mechanism on the USOS.Craigboy (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The APAS is used both on the Russian segment and the US segment. Penyulap _talk 02:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevent (Shenzhou wouldn't be able dock to the ones on Zarya or PMA-1)?Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Vladimir Sergeevich Syromyatnikov, 73, the veteran Russian space scientist whose docking system linked the Soviet Soyuz and the U.S. Apollo space capsules in the 1970s, a system that is still in use, died of leukemia Sept. 19 in Moscow.

Mr. Syromyatnikov worked for Energia Space Research Corp. in the space program since before Sputnik first orbited the Earth. He updated the design of his docking system in the 1990s for the meeting of the Mir space station and the Atlantis shuttle at the international space station.

His highly reliable electromechanical systems, which included the Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System, the proper name of the docking system, in addition to onboard manipulators and reusable solar arrays, are among the jewels of the Russian space program.

Mr. Syromyatnikov was one of the best, if not the best, of his country's space scientists, said Bruce Brandt, who worked on the Soyuz-Apollo program and later was Rockwell International's chief engineer on the Mir-Atlantis docking program.

— Patricia Sullivan Washington Post Staff Writer

I do think there was more than one use for the APAS system, or other uses besides the American and Chinese dockings. I think it could be misleading to present APAS as a system whose sole original purpose was NASA shuttle related, especially without proper, and I mean proper sources to support it.

The other concern was the use of the word 'clone' which has negative connotations implying the system was 'stolen'. It's like saying that Yinghuo-1 was a stow-away. It's a weasel, and agree that 100 references can be found to say 'clone' but until at least one of those references substantiates the accusation, then the long documented history of Sino-Russian technology transfer and co-operation should prevail.

Recently found a source (Chinese state run news website published in Russian) that claims that Russia assisted in the docking system's development but it does not specifically state its APAS. We're going to need a stronger source before we can call it an APAS mechanism. Although we may now be able to claim its at least derived from APAS using this source and the Boeing document.Craigboy (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a stronger source is needed, as it's a summary phrase. A tiny one, so rather than "Chinese built docking system based upon the Russian designed APAS family of docking systems" just whittle it down to the least, so it's APAS. As they all have Russian roots and origin, well, Russian designed APAS is looking cool, or how about "Chinese adaption of the Russian APAS" ? Anyhow it's a direct quote from an American library of congress report, so we only need to decide if we like it, as all other readers will be happy with it as is. I think I'm one of only a few(or maybe the only one) who hack and slash and overturn NASA refs (think solar) and so forth. Penyulap _talk 12:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Craigboy (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you and the others now, as I've outlined my concerns, and you are perfectly capable of working it out, but I would very much like to learn more about the origins and purpose of APAS. Penyulap _talk 02:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, here is the Policy I refereed to before

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus

Penyulap _talk 02:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In no way did the paragragh violate this policy. The Americans chose to use the Russian developed APAS mechanism for dockings on USOS, the Russians decided to use the Probe/Cone mechanism for ROS. The Chinese decided to base their mechanism off of APAS. This means the Chinese could dock to the USOS but not ROS. The Americans are going to a new system in the 2015/2016 time frame and both of the Chinese compatible APAS docking mechanisms will be covered. -craigboy

It does violate the policy, if APAS is described for Chinese wikipedia, you'd violate policy by saying "APAS was a Russian designed system, originally designed for the Shenzhou / tiangong programs." And then for (american)English wiki you'd violate by saying "APAS was a Russian designed system, originally designed for the American Shuttle/station program." I think a proper description of his docking system might have something to do with this...(craigboy, when you cut into my text like this can you please add -penyulap to my text so people know that it was my text you are cutting into, you make the page confusing)

The article did not say it was "orginally designed for the American Shuttle/station program", it said that APAS is "a Russian developed system that was used to dock the Space Shuttle to the ISS." That Space Shuttle mention explains why APAS is on USOS.Craigboy (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement "a Russian developed system that was used to dock the Space Shuttle to the ISS." which I made a sloppy referral to, is a violation of policy because while it says it was used to dock the shuttle, it can imply that was the reason APAS was created, which is blatantly misleading, false, and American-centric. Penyulap _talk 02:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No it only implies that the Space Shuttle used it. And because the Space Shuttle used that system there are open APAS docking mechanisms on USOS. And because there are open APAS mechanisms on USOS Shenzhou can dock to USOS. There are no open APAS mechanisms on ROS, and thus Shenzhou cannot dock to ROS. This is why ROS was not mentioned and the Space Shutte is. An extensive back history on APAS is not needed everytime it is mentioned. Just because something American is mentioned doesn't mean thee is NPOV violation.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

When it's a minority use of the system, and it's the only presentation of it's history, it is a violation. It's a textbook example. I feel like going and adding to that MOS page. On a different note, I think this conversation is becoming too hard to follow and verbose for the talkpage, perhaps it's best moved to our userpages. Unless "An extensive back history on APAS is not needed everytime it is mentioned." means we can just leave it as "The Shenzhou uses APAS". Penyulap _talk 05:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If Shenzhou can only dock to the USOS, it needs to be stated why those docking mechanisms are there in the first place. Simply because Shenzhou is only compatible with USOS, does not mean we have a NPOV problem because its a fact with no bias or deceit. See Things to avoidCraigboy (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

His highly reliable electromechanical systems, which included the Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System, the proper name of the docking system, in addition to onboard manipulators and reusable solar arrays, are among the jewels of the Russian space program.

His docking system was first tried out on unmanned spacecraft in 1967 or 1968, he told the publication Space News, then on two manned capsules in 1969. It successfully docked more than 200 missions and has never had a failure in space

— [4]

(craigboy, when you cut into my text like this can you please add -penyulap to my text so people know that it was my text you are cutting into, you make the page confusing)

The source is inaccurate which is why you should avoid non-space flight publications. APAS-75 was the first APAS mechanism but it wasn't used until the 1974 (unmanned test for the Apollo-Soyuz mission). The manned mission your quote is mentioning Soyuz 4/Soyuz 5, this used a very early version of the Russian Probe and Drogue (which Vladimir Syromyatnikov also worked on) that is used today.Craigboy (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the source, it is clear the person has done more research into APAS and is a better source than if the front page of the NASA website itself said "APAS was used to dock the shuttle to the ISS". A well researched point made by some little person beats a misleading half-truth from the NASA website. Penyulap _talk 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen are you serious? They got many basic things wrong (and the author is by no means an expert on the subject, but yet you take here word but not that of the engineers at Boeing). Your politcal ideolgies seem to be getting in the way of your objectivism.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm serious, Patricia is giving lots of leads and facts you can use to do further checking. Thats great. The Boeing 'engineers' as you call them, use the word 'clone' in a manner that defines the text book dictionary definition of 'unsubstantiated claim' it's an offhanded insult or a sloppy guess at best. Penyulap _talk 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen how much do you know about docking mechanisms?Craigboy (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is making me think that if we were to dig a little deeper we would find that APAS was not designed for the purpose of just the shuttle or just the Shenzhou, but rather it's a rather widely applied Russian standard, often adapted for other things. So the statement "a Russian developed system that was used to dock the Space Shuttle to the ISS" which is, yes, correct, is also ambiguous it can mislead into stating that was the original purpose of APAS. It needs re-phrasing so there is no ambiguity, probably just easiest to summarise APAS then point out it's used to dock the shuttle, which is all going to be so totally long and off topic/unnotable in the China section it shouldn't be there. it goes too far into the sub-directories from the original 'Shenzhou could dock in future' thing. I mean, you wouldn't listen to that guy at a party being so verbose without falling asleep, lets keep it tight. Penyulap _talk 12:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The new American NDS mechanism will use a docking mechanism standard called the "International Docking System Standard (IDSS)". This standard has been placed in the public domain (information on previous docking mechanisms is mostly propreitary and thus not availible to other countries), this has never been done before but will allow other countries to create docking mechanisms compatible with the standard. If China chooses to do this than they will regain the ability to dock to the ISS (also NDS is very similar to APAS). ESA is also developing a docking mechanism complient to IDSS but its not going to be placed on the ISS. -craigboy

It's awesome only in some other place. It's not China-specific. Penyulap _talk 12:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

TL:DR: China, for the moment can dock with the USOS. They are going to loose that ability. They will be able to regain it.Craigboy (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of the suggestion as being wide and open-ended, but actually I was too open-ended with the thinking as you're right. It does refer to the docking mech, and so it's more correct the way you suggest about it being able to dock until 2015(?), but maybe we should add both our viewpoints with wording such as "Shenzhou use a docking system based upon the Russian APAS, and could dock at the ISS until 2015(?) without modification, if it became political feasible" (needs checking). It would be better though, as it leaves open docking with modification after that date, which is obvious. Penyulap _talk 12:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

After I re-read my edits I agree that the mention of the NDS adapters and IDSS is off topic because its speculates that China would have a desire to use that particular system. But I do feel that it needs to be mentioned that the American APAS mechanisms are being covered.Craigboy (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, but only if you find a proper ref that says they can't be uncovered, or new ones can't be sent in preparation for the Chinese visit, or new arrangements cannot be made in preparation for the Chinese visit. Then and only then the statement 'the Chinese could dock in future' would be incorrect. If the Chinese and the Europeans or the Chinese and the Russians especially wanted to do a Apollo-Soyuz historic handshake in space they could do it in 3 months prep time, but why bother ? there is no big rift to cross. They don't go boasting about what is possible they just get on with doing it, with small announcements of what they are about to do. Saying this and that is possible is not their style, for either of these superpowers. Penyulap _talk 02:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If the Zarya is disconnected from PMA-1, than it would no longer be the International Space Station. Russia uses different docking ports so they're not compatible like the source says. "Then and only then the statement 'the Chinese could dock in future' would be incorrect." No because it can dock with USOS. You would not be able to build and launch an adapter in three months.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, right here is where I'm finishing up my conversation on this topic on this page, this is, I think, too confusing for some editors to follow, not useful enough to most editors and can be, or not, continued on userpages. It is way too far out there into speculation on speculation and is far too many words to put into the idea of Shenzhou docking at the ISS. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen I've been trying to explain to you the same thing over and over again. Shenzhou is simply not "compatible" with ROS because it would have to be modified for it to dock.Craigboy (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But yes, it is a weird tangent, it is to address the classic case of the 'Elephant in the room' something not talked about, but impossible to ignore. China has a space station project, it has the capabilities, and the co-operation, it's manned ship got within, like 50km's of the ISS I think (although with a different inclination) so why aren't they a partner ? of course NASA is tight lipped because it's their doing. The other countries are like not so reticent to talk about it, but is that section too prominent ? maybe it should be inside the co-operation section ? although a number of people have asked about china, and it's becoming increasingly important as the Tiangong program gains a higher profile, it's something that is only going to get bigger, so there it is. (for reason like that, I thought it best to allow it's inevitable place upon the TOC). But please, I want to know what people think of it, for prominence, notability, stuff like that, although I do take that NPOV thing seriously, and am aware of the american media coverage(or non-coverage as the case may be) Penyulap _talk 05:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cn and clarification

"Craigboy (talk | contribs)‎ (189,259 bytes) (→China: No one is questioning if APAS is Russian, you need to cite that they are using APAS. The claim that Shenzhou could dock to ISS is very vague. In this case "many" seems to be a peacock term.) (undo)" When you mention 'many is a peacock term, what term would be better to describe the number of times the docking system has been used, as a comparison to other docking systems? (please add -penyulap when you cut in)

How is the number of dockings relevent?Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Two ways, One as a simple indicator that the APAS system is used for other things rather than just the shuttle. Recall if you will STS-135 was the last mission, so 200 dockings can't have been performed by the NASA shuttle even if every one of it's trips went to the ISS. It's a fair indication that there is more to the story. Instant indication that there is more to be researched. Two, as for the peacock term, I'd say 'many is understated' if after all many is the wrong word to describe 200 dockings, what would be said of the shuttle docking system ? it's seldom-used ? that wouldn't go down well with readers. I'm thinking whatever the shuttle uses has been used 'many times' and something that has been used more often than that can have a 'many' or something even better. Penyulap _talk 02:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen its a bad source. The 200 dockings statement probably wasn't even meant to be about APAS, how could it be? Since APAS was mostly only used for the Shuttle program. The 200 dockings probably meant to be about the Probe/Drogue system. Many was only a peacock term for "...China, Europe and Russia have a co-operative relationship in many space exploration projects" because they have only done a few missions together.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an agent moulder moment, research Craigboy, because 'the truth is out there' Penyulap _talk 06:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be looking for it from an author who has no history on writing articles on spaceflight.Craigboy (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy for you to remove the word 'many' or delighted if you find a better, fairer term. It mentions 200 dockings in the quotation above, I'm thinking a little research would find a wealth of info. In regards to the remainder, I'm wondering if this one will do, I'll add a few more if it's not, until I'm bored and onto something else. The first is a bit vague, but has a better summary which still highlights the Nasa-shuttle-ISS useage.

The Shenzhou docking collar is similar to the Russian-designed APAS system, which was used in the joint U.S.-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the assembly of the Russian space station Mir and by space shuttles visiting the International Space Station.

The androgynous docking system is designed so either spacecraft can be active or passive.

China says the docking system would permit Shenzhou capsules to attach to the ISS if the country was ever invited to join the multinational research laboratory.

— [5]

I'm thinking it's not a VHS/Beta kind of thing here, they connect together, they are designed to. You could call it 'apas compatible' but every version of APAS is apas compatible(please add -penyulap when you cut in)

Only APAS-75 is not.Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm thinking it is myself. Wasn't that the one used on that whole Apollo-Soyuz (Or reversed in Russian, as Soyuz-Apolla, lol) mission thing. There was like one Russian designed APAS-75 on each craft and the whole thing went down smooth, without any embarassing moments in space where they found out that APAS-75 was not APAS compatible ? Penyulap _talk 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For the Apollo-Soyuz mission they both used APAS-75 (the mission also occured in 1975). APAS-89 is derived from APAS-75 but is radically different. APAS-95 (first Space Shuttle docking to Mir occurred in 1995) was developed to be used on the Space Shuttle but its basically the same system and is compatible with APAS-89. Usually when some mentions "APAS", they are referring to the APAS-89/95 system.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

, there are lots of different versions, (please add -penyulap when you cut in)

There really is only three.Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Three is lots. besides, I'm sure there are other versions we don't know of offhand. Plus my penyulap skills tell me that the different versions are pretty much compatible, and we won't find it referenced either way, not easily. Penyulap _talk 03:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No Pen, these were the only three ever used. APAS-75 in no way would be able to dock with APAS-89, the petals are completly differrent, the diameters are different and the hooks don't line up. Not to mention the last APAS-75 docking was in 1975, and the first APAS-89 docking was in 1993. And there would be no reason for APAS-89/95 to be compatible with APAS-75 because it wasn't even in use after 1976.Craigboy (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Zarya and Zvezda ones would have slight mission-specific mods,

Zvezda does not have an APAS mechanism, and Zarya only has one (which connects it to USOS).Craigboy (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

different to the MIR APAS. Just calling it APAS is a fair short summary in my opinion, but whatever you like is fine too. Just no 'Clone'. Penyulap _talk 12:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC) Does anyone have a preference for 'similar to' or 'modified version of' APAS ? Penyulap _talk 18:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I just did a bit more editing on the China section, and was thinking the writing isn't too bad, but if it didn't all belong in this article, where else could it possibly belong, I mean it doesn't go in the 921 or Shenzhou or wherever, it looks right at home here. Just takes a few moments to grow on you. Needs a few refs maybe, I think when sections are new, people love the needle on the ref meter to be way over on the overkill side of the dial. Actually, I just noticed the first paragraph of international co-operation I wrote ages ago doesn't have a single ref in it and nobody has hit it with a single cn tag, man, nothing but net ! I'm guessing readers have all heard of the Soyuz-Apollo and don't care about the rest, but the China stuff needs refs cause Americans don't trust China, it's the new Red. Penyulap _talk 18:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You have made such a mess of the talkpage section that I can't even find the last comment you made, all I can see is the diff, so I'll reply even though I said I wouldn't really. This extended conversation should go on user talkpages really. In regards to "If Shenzhou can only dock to the USOS, it needs to be stated why those docking mechanisms are there in the first place." I say fine ! if they were put there for the purpose of Chinese ships docking, then put it in the China section, otherwise do what both of us have been suggesting and put it somewhere else ok ? In regards to "Pen how much do you know about docking mechanisms?" I think I recall that I've forgotten some of what I remembered that I'd forgotten previously, but I think I recall that this should ALL BE SOMEWHERE ELSE not on the talkpage for the article, (I think). In regards to "Pen I've been trying to explain to you the same thing over and over again." I agree, you have, hows that going ? In regards to "Shenzhou is simply not "compatible" with ROS because it would have to be modified for it to dock" That's great. So given this is a modular space station which can be modified easily for changing missions, the partners have, I dunno, 17 more years to modify the ROS if they choose to do so, agreed ? Which, yet again, proves that the phrase "The Shenzhou could dock with the ISS if it becomes politically feasible in the future." is true, It does not require any further qualification to stay true. It is already true. In regards to "And you shouldn't be looking for it from an author who has no history on writing articles on spaceflight." Huh ? Penyulap _talk 18:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

When discussing an article, the talk page of that article is usually the best place. The statement "The Shenzhou could dock with the ISS if it becomes politically feasible in the future" doesn't really mean anything once you think about it. We might as well have "The Soyuz could dock with Tiangong-1 if it becomes politically feasible in the future" on the Tiangong-1 page or the "Apollo Command/Service module could have docked to Saylut 1 if it was politically feasible" on the Salyut 1 page.Craigboy (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. It's all true, and if anyone ever says it, then it'll be notable and can be included. Otherwise you can't actually stick that stuff into all those articles. Penyulap _talk 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also I'm actually cool using the talkpage for talk, it's just I don't want to get drive by Shot in the head again for misusing a talkpage... that sort of thing, but as I've taken the responsibility of answering questions (maintaining the article) I guess I can keep answering queries, well hopefully someone will mention if it is too verbose for their eyes first, but you never know, they could go straight to ANI. (shrug) Penyulap _talk 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"I think I recall that I've forgotten some of what I remembered that I'd forgotten previously" Do you need me to prove it's a bad ref for info on docking mechanisms?Craigboy (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey you found it again for me, thanks! I forgive your deleting it. I'll take back 1 glare. I put it into the article, it's just to reference the 'Russian designed' bit for now, but it's probably useful somewhere else too. Penyulap _talk 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I write or are you just avoiding my questions?Craigboy (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly am reading everything, I love reading everything, everywhere. Not avoiding your questions, to backtrack and answer the last ones, you don't need to prove or disprove anything, the ref was simply for the APAS being Russian designed, that was all. Such refs are a 'dime a dozen' and easily found, we can choose any. That one I had chosen simply because it was a good read with lots of further reading. Please feel free to choose your own. As for other info on docking mechs, what info would you like ref'd I'll help find one, or a selection. Penyulap _talk 06:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)