Talk:International Space Station/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2017

Under Tranquility under Pressurized Modules, it says PMA-3 is connected and only the zenith port is open. In truth, as the configuration image shows, the PMA-3 module has been moved to the zenith port of harmony, and the zenith and port berthing mechanisms of tranquility are both vacant. I fixed this and also added which direction from Tranquility the other modules are berthed.

Original:

Like the other US nodes, it has six berthing mechanisms, five of which are currently in use. The first one connects to the station's core via the Unity module, others host the Cupola, the PMA docking port #3, the Leonardo PMM and the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module. The final zenith port remains free.

Edit:

Like the other US nodes, it has six berthing mechanisms, four of which are currently in use. The starboard one connects to the station's core via the Unity module, the nadir one hosts the Cupola, the forward one hosts the Leonardo PMM and the aft one hosts the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module. The zenith and port berthing mechanisms remains free. Eucalyptine (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Note:@Eucalyptine: This request is your 10th edit. This means you're now able to edit semi protected pages including this one.  — Ammarpad (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Space Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029013438/http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/pdfs/on_orbit.pdf to http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/pdfs/on_orbit.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618005710/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/isseo6.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/flights/isseo6.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://defensenews.com/blogs/space-symposium/2009/04/03/its-getting-crowded-up-there/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Space Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614033947/http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad15sep99_1.htm to https://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad15sep99_1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012212949/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/13/commander-hadfield-space-oddity to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/13/commander-hadfield-space-oddity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

First content made for Wikipedia in space!

ESA Astronaut Paolo Nespoli's spoken voice

The first ever content made in space specifically for Wikipedia - on the ISS - was uploaded to Commons today, and is used on Paolo Nespoli. See Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind for how this happened. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There have now been several press items about this, so I've added it to the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Frequency of reboost?

I was wondering how often (or how many times a year) are "reboosts" performed to combat orbital decay? 62.147.25.92 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Well, I've since found https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9087/how-often-does-iss-require-re-boosting-to-higher-orbit that more or less answers it. Still, wouldn't the article's "Orbit" subsection benefit from some details about the causes and remedies of orbital decay? 62.147.25.148 (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Altitude inconsistency?

Article says three things I can't reconcile:

• "The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km"
• "Perigee 401.1 km [...] Apogee 408.0 km"
• "a minimum mean altitude of 330 km (205 mi) and a maximum of 410 km (255 mi)"

Shouldn't those three sets of values be the same? 62.147.25.92 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: (I've since understood how the infobox is just for one orbital period.) The discrepancy between the two other lines still eludes me. Could they be related to two different eras (e.g. during and after the Shuttle) with different orbital habits? Shouldn't they be harmonized or qualified? 62.147.25.148 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

The mass of the ISS should be changed from 419455 kg stated in the article to 419725 kg [1] (updated 9 May 2018).

 1: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures XTrollxDudex (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Length of the ISS?

The entry says the ISS is 72.8 metres in length. But when I add up the lengths of the individual modules I get only 52.23 metres:

FORE

Module	Length (m)	Length (ft)
IDA-2 (estimated)	1.10	3.6
PMA-2 (estimated)	2.20	7.2
Harmony (Node 2)	7.20	24.0
Destiny	8.40	28.0
Unity (Node 1)	5.47	17.9
PMA-1 (estimated)	2.20	7.2
Zarya	12.56	41.2
Zvezda	13.10	43.0
Total	52.53	171.3
(Wikipedia article)	72.80	238.8

AFT

Somewhere along the line I'm missing 20.57 metres/67.5 feet. That's longer than the longest module in the entire station (Zvezda, 13.1 metres.)

Can anyone help me on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradlegar (talk • contribs) 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bradlegar: The data sheet at NASA[1] states: Pressurized Module Length: 240 feet (73 meters). They are probably adding up the lengths of all pressurized modules, including those sitting perpendicular to the ISS main axis. The wording of our article should be amended to clear the confusion. — JFG ^talk 07:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Commanders

I'm surprised that there isn't a list extant of the Commanders of the International Space Station. This is relevant to Space Law. kencf0618 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kencf0618: You can see all commanders and other crew members at List of International Space Station expeditions. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I hadn't thought of that. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Constant rotation - except during docking?

Article does not seem to say that the ISS flies in a constant attitude with respect to its orbit - (hence the labelling in the diagram of starboard, zenith, forward etc) since the orbit takes 90 minutes this means it has to pitch down at 4 degrees/min - except when docking! During docking (at least to the US end) the rotation is stopped with thrusters, and restarts after the docking is complete - If docking takes a while does it "catch up" - or do they just stop rotating for a multiple of 90 minutes and restart when attitude is correct ? Anyone know if they stop the rotation for docking on the Russian end ? Looking for an RS to use. - Rod57 (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably uses the Control Moment Gyros instead of thrusters as far as possible. - Rod57 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rod57: I was unable to find sources that directly answer your question but it appears that the ISS's attitude is adjusted prior to docking. However it's not the what you suggested where they eliminate pitch. The ISS continues to pitch and maintains a fixed attitude relative to Earth.

The exact attitude varies depending on if it's the shuttle or Soyuz and during shuttle missions if they also were to be boosting the ISS.

Some sources claim that prior to docking the ISS was put into free drift mode to prevent all Reaction Control System (RCS) jet firings and to prevent attitude control using its Control Moment Gyroscopes (CMGs) to make adjustments to the attitude until docking is completed and the locks/clamps between the spacecraft and ISS are secure.

Other sources claim that the ISS is kept under positive attitude control until just after docking when it goes into free drift for a while. They reverse this and free drift 3 minutes prior to undocking. The intent of the free drift was that the impact of the docking sends ripples through the ISS structure. They did not want the attitude control system trying to compensate at that time and so switch to free drift at the moment of docking.

I did some math. The ISS is roughly 52 meters long. Let's assume its center of gravity is in the middle making its circumference 163.4 meters as it rotates. It orbits every 92.68 minutes resulting in the ends of the ISS swinging at 1.76 meters per minute or 2.94 cm per second. (edit/correction - while the docking port is moving at 2.94cm/second we also need to take into account that the approaching spacecraft is some distance from the port. For example, if it's 100 meters from the port the spacecraft needs to move up or down at 8.59 meters/second to stay lined up. Fortunately, it does not need to fly in a circle but can instead form an octagon or a similar shape to stay lined up.)

An approaching spacecraft uses its RCS to match the drift of the ISS and would add or subtract 2.94 cm per second to its rate of travel so that it stays exactly lined up with the docking target. If it needed to stay lined up for 90 minutes it would have used its RCS to fly a full circle around the ISS. Most of the time docking only takes a few minutes and it's likely never apparent they flew part of a circle to keep up with the ISS's pitch.

Supporting sources:

• [2] is a decent forum thread as it has sources
• [3] does not directly answer your question but I get the sense that they don't alter the pitch rate of the ISS. The approaching spacecraft uses its RCS to line up with ISS.
• [4] is far more detailed though it does not directly answer your question. One puzzle in this document is the use of all upper case FREE in the phrase "FREE drift". It implies that FREE is also an abbreviation or acronym.
• [5] says that the ISS is put into free drift mode prior to docking and in that case they were in that state for several hours. The article includes "During this free drift period, the ISS was rotating at a rate of about 3° per minute on each axis." The normal pitch to maintain "bottoms down" is 3.88 degrees per minute. I suspect the loss of 0.88 degrees per minute is because the author thought the normal pitch was 3 degrees per minute.
• [6] "When the space station must rotate for operations such as docking of resupply vehicles"
• [7] "At the end of May 2002; the ISS was in a high solar beta X-POP period. The ISS attitude was transitioned from X-POP to LVLH on June 7th, several hours prior to shuttle docking."and "Normally the +XVV attitude is flown, but during docked Space Shuttle missions, the attitude is changed to –XVV to allow for the Space Shuttle to not be in the forward velocity direction to avoid the potential for micro-meteorite debris."
• [8] rendezvous is on page 1-7. Free drift initiated 3 minutes after contact. 3 minutes prior to undocking "ORBITER AND ISS IN FREE DRIFT TO BEGIN UNHOOKING"
• [9] Soyuz Orbital Insertion to Docking Timeline. It mentions the ISS is flying in LVLH just prior to docking.
• [10] This guy likely knows the answer and could point to sources. I could not find that he has already answered the question but did find:
  • [11] - discusses undocking though only casual mention of free drift.
  • [12] "sometimes to facilitate Russian dockings, we pitch the ISS 90 degrees." and "When the Space Shuttle orbiter used to provide reboosts, we would yaw 180 degrees."
  • [13] Interesting commentary on gravity gradient torques
  • [14] talks about LVLH attitude.
• Docking and berthing of spacecraft#Salyut 7 space station salvage mission on Wikipedia is fascinating when you think about the challenge that docking provided.
• [15] is interesting. Watch from about the 3 minute mark on. The Soyuz TMA-19M is close enough that you can see its RCS firings. At 4:35 they realize the automated docking is failing and the Soyuz backs away. They docked under manual control ten minutes later.

--Marc Kupper|talk 08:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Marc Kupper: Hi Marc - I appreciate your research and I will study it ASAP.

My information on the ISS stopping rotation during docking came from Robert Frost's answer on Quora to [16] or a similar answer. He says ISS goes into Attitude Hold during docking. I was surprised, and asked him to clarify that the 4 degrees/min pitching was stopped (but I can't find that dialog now). Thanks again. - Rod57 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rod57: Thank you. Google had found the article you referenced yesterday but when I viewed it Firefox showed "How does the ISS keep its orientation?" over "1 Answer" and then "Related Questions". The answer was missing. I pulled up Chrome and Robert Frost's answer is visible.

I'm wondering if the use of the term "Attitude Hold" is more about holding ISS in a specific attitude and perhaps more about holding in attitudes that are normally unstable. For example, they may hold the ISS in an attitude prior to docking that will then result in a stable attitude once docked.

NASA document AAS 08-0XX mentions that some TEAs are unstable and it appears attitude hold is used to maintain them. It also has a lot about changes in attitude that result from undocking and how to keep those changes from exceeding the available momentum management capacity under various conditions.

Google for site:quora.com "International Space Station" "Attitude Hold" gets four hits:

• [17] - The first part of the answer about "Attitude" is word for word identical to the answer you found. It's followed by a section on "Altitude."
• [18] - The SAFER system used during EVAs has an Attitude Hold mode that seems to orient the person in a stable configuration. It cancels rotations and spins.
• [19] - a list of things done on a day on ISS included "EVA SAFER Automatic Attitude Hold Checkout"
• [20] - More details about how SAFER works and the steps someone does to reorient and recover.

site:nasa.gov "International Space Station" "Attitude Hold" has 248 hits. I only looked at the first one which is NASA document AAS 08-0XX I mentioned above.

In summary, I suspect is ISS always in a fixed attitude with respect to the horizon throughout a rendezvous and docking or undocking and departure. I've seen nothing that hints they put the ISS in an attitude that's locked onto the stars or Sun and thus is rotating or spinning relative to Earth. They like to keep the belly side down to maintain communications with the ground plus GPS. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"no plans to separate the Russian segment from the ISS" -- Igor Komarov, Roscosmos 2017

Update needed:

but has proposed using elements of the Russian Orbital Segment to construct a new Russian space station called [[Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex|OPSEK]].<ref name="moscow20141117">{{cite news |url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-may-be-planning-national-space-station-to-replace-iss/511299.html |title=Russia May Be Planning National Space Station to Replace ISS |work=The Moscow Times |first=Matthew |last=Bodner |date=17 November 2014 |accessdate=3 March 2015}}</ref>

per more recent:

https://spacenews.com/international-partners-in-no-rush-regarding-future-of-iss/ Komarov, however, backed away from reports that Russia was considering separating its modules from the ISS to form a Russian space station after 2024, acknowledging that the technical feasibility of that has been studied. “We have no plans to separate the Russian segment from the ISS,” he said. “We keep the same position, that we should work on the ISS together with our partners.”

- Drakcap (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced drinking urine for shock value.

1) The cited reference is for an earlier part of the statement and does not source the claim at all. As such, it is subject to removal per policy.

2) I read the engineering on this one when the device came out. While there a device for the station that can reclaim water from urine and the many puns that followed it was stated that while possible this water would NOT be the potable water source and would be used for other purposes like oxygen generation.

3) I'm not fixing this.

Drakcap (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Renaming of Uzlovoy Module to Prichal (ISS module)

Since this would possibly lead to numerous changes in the ISS-related articles, I would appreciate any comments and suggestions from the ISS article editors regarding my proposition to rename the Uzlovoy Module article properly. Igor Krein (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Future Soyuz MS expeditions

It is highly likely that there is a confusion with Soyuz MS missions numbers in the Scheduled missions list, starting from MS-14. The mission planned on this date would be unmanned test flight (Soyuz spaceship + Soyuz-2.1a rocket combination for the first time), so it shouldn't be called MS-14. Actually, Soyuz MS-14 article definitely refers to the next Soyuz manned flight, which is named MS-15 in the list (and so on). I'd fix this confusion by myself, but I am not sure about some extra details (for example, I am not sure what do indexes like 59S mean). Could someone help me with this? Igor Krein (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that this list is correct, and the articles Soyuz MS-14, Soyuz MS-15 etc. are off by one. The Pietrobon source lists MS-14 as a test flight, I don't know is Roskosmos would name it differently if unmanned. Perhaps Sbsail can help clarify this from Russian sources? To your other question: "59S" is the NASA designation for the 59th Soyuz mission to the ISS, which will be MS-13 according to the Russian numbering. — JFG ^talk 19:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I just noticed that Soyuz MS schedule in the table was picked up today from a recent Russian source.[21] It confirms the naming of the uncrewed test flight as Soyuz MS-14. That source can now be used to update the relevant articles. Launch dates have changed too. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I have updated all articles accordingly. — JFG ^talk 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

JFG, thank you for creating Soyuz MS-14 article. I added more info from the original Energia press release/news article. I removed word "updated" before Soyuz-2.1a because in the context of the sentence it can be misunderstood as "[further] updated [for this mission]". Also Soyuz MS-xx in general is not shortened to MS-xx. MS is part of the name of the spacecraft. It stands for Modernized Systems. Using it as a prefix for the flight number looks strange to me. Or maybe it's a Russian cultural thing. Russians use abbreviations less often than people in Western countries. — Sbsail ^talk 23:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I've come to the wrong [opposite] conclusion. Actually, it was me who added RIA Novosti source yesterday, and it looks like I was so concentrating on the launch dates I've completely missed that the only unmanned Soyuz mission was also the only not unnamed in that source. BTW, thank you and Sbsail for your work on the missed article, it was pretty quick. Igor Krein (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• ISS-34 Chris A. Hadfield inside his sleeping quarter in Node 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Add space launch complex 41 to launch pads list

For Starliner and Crew Dragon missions we need to update the page Sb4321 (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You’re correct that Boeing will use complex 41, but Crew Dragon will launch from Kennedy 39A. Grey Wanderer (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added CCAFS SLC-41 (future) - once CST-100 actually launches the (future) tag can be removed. 5Ept5xW (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

SEDS reliable source for ISS calendar?

[22] is a more up to date ISS calendar than [23]. Last updates are October 12 vs May 9th respectively. Second has been (and currently still is) in use at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches though obviously getting rather outdated and in need of replacement. Is "SEDS Students for the Exploration and Development of Space" a suitable replacement reliable source? crandles (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

The best source for information on SpaceX visits to the ISS is SpaceX themselves. The SpaceX API provides up-to-the-minute correct information. https://api.spacexdata.com/v3/launches?limit=1&offset=81&pretty=true retrieves a block of JSON, or to see all the information from the SpaceX API presented for human consumption, you could use SpaceX stats[24]. The API may be a better reference source. --M-streeter97 (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This will give you all upcomming SpaceX missions to the ISS: https://api.spacexdata.com/v3/launches/upcoming?orbit=ISS&filter=launch_date_utc,rocket/rocket_name,launch_site/site_name,rocket/second_stage/payloads/payload_id,rocket/second_stage/payloads/payload_type,mission_name --M-streeter97 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding and removing spacecraft from currently docked/berthed

Arrivals in the next few weeks Soyuz Crs-18 Progress Departures Cygnus Progress Also need to add IDA-3 to the list of modules Sb4321 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

delete me if i'm wrong but ...

The International Space Station was NOT funded to be a space exploration toy, and that is the topic.

It was funded because it was claimed it would in the future be critical in administration of communication satellites - that there was a growing need for presence, and a firm station could provide that.

That's not been the case. Missiles are used to launch satellite, ground bases have proven to do most work, they are more "disposable" than the past, and ground bases can hail the satellite to burn in orbit.

A good question is how many satellite rescues and what cost was ever saved by the mission.

U.S. and others would not have funded an IST if it's mission was simply as a "space lab" (us had it's own station plans, that's true, but didn't go forward). There is plenty of substance to say the heat/waves of space can be simulated on ground if they need to be and that "manufacturing in space" is not something anyone would say comes out cost ahead. And all the launches to maintain it, subtracted from satellite that never got to orbit (or deep space) due to those. There are minuses in the column.

Adhering to it's originally funded mission: perhaps not.

The topic is that "unspecified research" without critical missions the project would not have been funded. What are the critical missions?

HOWEVER - the wikipedia article says IST was funded simply for any research (which nation) desired. That is what I'm debating as untrue.

A cool project - certainly - reguardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:400:547B:92C:ED37:CC8B:FB3A (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Article does not give any history before the Jan 1998 agreement.

Article does not seem to give any history before the Jan 1998 agreement. The modules launched that year must have been in development for many years - maybe for other purposes - was the ISS a renaming, or modification of, or replacement for Space Station Freedom ? Were the goals and designs changed much ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Manufacturing of ESA Modules

The ESA-built modules (after Columbus) - Harmony, Tranquility, the Leonardo MPLM, and the Cupola - were manufactured at the Thales Alenia Space facility located in Turin (Italy), not in the Cannes Mandelieu Space Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

А в МКС какое эхо ?

Просто интересно узнать какое эхо в Космосе .. ? 176.59.198.74 (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google translate tells me you're asking about echo on the ISS/in space. Could you clarify the question, and note the guideline to WP:SPEAKENGLISH if possible on talk pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Atlas N22 - Who is the Launch Service Provider? Boeing or ULA

You have listed the Launch Service Provider for the launch of the Boeing Starliner Crewed Spacecraft as Boeing. However, isn't ULA actually the provider of the Altas N22 rocket and its services? For the later launch of the Dreamchaser, you have ULA listed as the Launch Service provider even though

user:mnw2000 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Orbit height updates

It looks to be average of 418km ASML as of January 2020. ISS was gaining 1km per month in reboosts over last years. They will boost it 2 km up, then wait for it to decay by 1km, then reboost by 2km up again, and repeat. In January 2019 it was about 407km. Now it is 418km. https://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeight.aspx 81.6.34.246 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

change componments to components Jobispro (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think all the blue lettering Is wrong

I think u should change back to black lettering 8sweetness (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX Dragon docking at ISS on 31 May

I am raising the issue of including the SpaceX Dragon arrival at the ISS on May 31st in the article lede. This a major event pertaining to the ISS and deserves a mention up front I would think. I welcome your opinions. 88.13.70.87 (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I suggested a few weeks ago that the lead probably needs to be reworked a bit because it is too long and poorly structured (see above). I made a start on that myself but got distracted with other things and nobody else seemed to be very interested. The new Dragon para that you added earlier today was probably too detailed and did not sit comfortably at the end of an already-too-long lead section. You said that the docking of Space X Dragon on 31 May 2020 is a major event which I would dispute because it is subjective and US-centric. We need to identify what is notable about this event and maybe add a sentence to the existing text in the lead, probably in the penultimate paragraph where the cargo variant of the Dragon spacecraft is already mentioned. I would add a sentence along the lines of: "A crewed variant of Dragon travelled to the ISS in May 2020, the first manned mission launched from US soil since the retirement of the Space shuttle in March 2011." Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I do not consider particularly important to mention that this is the first manned mission from US soil since the retirement of the Space shuttle. I am OK with leaving that out. But the voyage itself is rather important. Yes, this is subjective, but you don't get astronauts arriving at or departing from the ISS every day. So by the standard of their very low frequency, such events are important and worth mentioning in the lede, at least the latest such trips to the station. It is also the first time that a commercial, privately-built spaceship arrives at the ISS. So, I would agree with your suggested sentence, maybe pointing out that this is the latest visit of astronauts and that it is aboard a commercial or privately-funded spaceship.88.13.70.87 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Great photo from NASA website for this article

I would suggest you find a way to include the photo on the NASA website, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/visiting-vehicle-launches-arrivals-and-departures, on this article. I suspect that NASA, a government agency, allows for publication of the photo on Wikipedia.

user:mnw2000 14:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead section too long

I've tried to tidy up the article structure, combining relevant sections to improve the flow and reduce the overall number of 2nd-level headings. I did this partly with a view to peeling open the TOC which is currently limited to 2nd-level headings, with all subheadings hidden. I personally think the article would be enriched somewhat by expanding the TOC to 3rd-level headings because at the moment it's really not very useful to the reader for the purpose of navigating round the article. However, as this would take up more space vertically, this has drawn my attention to the fact that the lead is currently far too long. If it were reduced, this would help accommodate a slightly longer TOC beneath. I think the lead is too wordy and doesn't adequately summarise the important points in the article—see WP:MOSLEAD. I'd be happy to have a go at this, if anyone would like to help? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

This is what the expanded TOC would look like. [[25]] Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The solution is not to just rip out huge chunks of the lead and place them in a superficial "General Overview" section directly beneath. Given the size and complexity of the ISS article, the current lead length is pretty much justified. I think the solution to the fact it has maybe too many paragraphs (WP:MOSLEAD suggests a maximum of four) might be to just combine a couple of them. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Air leaking of the ISS

We need to expand this article to mention the air leaking of the ISS. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Please explain why you think this issue needs to be discussed on the ISS wiki page as a matter of urgency. The article is meant to give a detailed encyclopedic description of the station. What you are proposing is to introduce and report on a current news story which may or may not develop into something more serious. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 ISS air leak is reported several times in media, and I don't want to mention only that particular air leak. I want the entire history of air leaks of the ISS to be mentioned elsewhere. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Swiss participation

In the list of participating countries, Switzerland is listed under the EU. But Switzerland isn't part of the EU. Either this is a mistake, or there are some provisions which puts Switzerland under the EU flag, but then they should be explained. Now, it's just confusing. 2001:985:5AA4:1:6584:D82B:85C3:83F3 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Good point. The same applies to Norway. The list under "Participating countries" is misleading anyway because the ISS has nothing to do with the European Union so EU membership is irrelevant in this context. The European countries involved with the ISS are all members of the ESA, which is not an agency or body of the EU and has non-EU countries (Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) as members. I would suggest it should really just be a simple alphabetical bulleted list with no subdivision, like this:

• Belgium
• Brazil (former)
• Canada
• Denmark
• France
• Germany
• Italy
• Japan
• Netherlands
• Norway
• Russia
• Spain
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• United States

Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

change the photo given in currently docked/verthed

on addition of crew1 mission the the photo is changed, so shift to new one please. Chinakpradhan (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Spacecraft vs. Mission

Why is FSB the spacecraft and Nauka the mission for the April 20th launch to the ISS?
Why is Prichal the spacecraft and Progress M-UM the mission for the September 6th launch to the ISS?
(Shouldn't Progress M be the spacecraft and Pichal be the mission?)

Isn't the purpose of both launches is to deliver new modules (Nauka, Prichal) to the ISS?

user:mnw2000 18:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Article being semi-protected

Ok, my question is... How to turn this article semi-protected? AdjectiveGuy (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on my iss infobox image

I tried this because though the earlier is nice, its outdated so a update must be needed 10 years hence the image was not updated even once. please give your views on the changesChinakpradhan (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What to do about pirs in the ISS Structure Section

Pirs will be undocked so problem is if removed from iss structure diagram pirs heritage is lost and if kept what colour it must be? please anyone helpChinakpradhan (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Who removed docking adapter on zarya nadir

I noticed that progress ms 17 will remove nauka nadir docking adapter for prichal module but who removed zarya nadir docking adapter for Rassvet nadir I see no progress mentioning its disposal please tell if someone remembers or can find out Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

It will be helpful if someone knows as I am making the iss structure diagram Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You can read why removal of docking adapter is important on nauka page. Since the docking adapter is to be removed from nauka after 2 dockings something similar was to done after 3 dockings on zarya nadir port. Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I want to know thus which spacewalk or spacecraft removed the zarya docking adapter Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

See there is a docking adapter on zarya nadir in this image Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Finally I got it Docking and berthing of spacecraft, rassvet was docked to a soyuz port that's why I thought why we heard this first time a Progress that is MS-17 will deorbit the docking adapter used for soyuz missions Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Will Nauka reuse pirs components like it's docking port?

It is clear that pirs will be orbited to dock nauka to zvezda nadir. But my question is that whether the pirs docking port be also discarded or it will be reused and attached to nauka or prichal module. I have seen many docking ports to be reused like pma3/ida3 now at harmony zenith. This wikimedia gif also shows that docking ports were relocated.

Animation of the assembly of the International Space Station

And also I think relocating pirs docking port will be nice as though the prichal module has 5 out of 6 docking ports for visiting vehicles but after watching the image of prichal I don't think all 5 docking ports will be used as their nearness may cause only 3 ports to be used as thinking if all ports are used the vehicle may not be freeily attached to prichal in rishte of colliding. So I think the pirs docking port must be reused and attached to nauka.

If somebody knows the answer please reply. Chinakpradhan (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK Nauka didn't reuse much from Pirs. At most some external KIRS antena's and docking targets. Nauka replaced Pirs, Pirs undocked from Zarya Nadir, and deorbited, to make the hybrid docking port available for Nauka. The UM Prichal will dock to the nadir of Nauka at the end of this year. A progress will take along the hybrid to ... docking interface. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Intrest in ISS-topology maps?

In the past Nasa published increment overview documents. These included internal topology maps that showed the different ISPR racks and the external payloads. I've tried to continue this work and posted it on Nasaspaceflight.com. Because the moderating team there really likes to just remove posts, I've removed the content there. Is there any intrest to include those on Wikipedia?

ISS topology April 2021

It's just an excel file where I make screenshots from. I prefer to ask permission before just editing it into the pages, and seeing it removed later. Any suggestions for improvements? An idea I've got is to add the topology maps to the increment (expeditions) and ACLSS articles. I'm also trying to make a similar topology image for the Chinese space station. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Santa

Is Santa real and what do u think about him if he is 2A02:C7D:5DF4:BA00:493C:D1FF:6C60:7D71 (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated number for how much % of time is spent on maintenance vs science?

Under the Public Opinions Section, it says The "American Enterprise reports, for instance, that ISS astronauts "now spend 85 percent of their time on construction and maintenance" alone"

While trying to look for a source, [1] seems to quote the same magazine : "A little more than 10 years ago, Congress appropriated $13 billion for the ISS, which had been scaled down and repackaged as a glorious joint venture between the U.S. and "post-Soviet" Russia. Since then "costs have soared while ambitions faded," notes William Tucker of The American Enterprise. "When completed, the ISS will hold six astronauts. The two in residence now spend 85 percent of their time on construction and maintenance. In essence, the U.S. is spending billions so that two astronauts can build a space shed."

However, this magazine's last issue was in 2006, so this figure is probably even older.

Is there an updated number of how much work-hours astronauts spend on maintenance vs scientific experiments?

[1]https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Freedom%27s+frontier%3A+from+the+ocean%27s+depths+to+outer+space%2C+private...-a0126313844 Supersonic71 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Problems that happened to the ISS

The article is missing a section about problems that occurred. Recent problems are the Russian anti satellite test that created debris that threated the ISS. Another time is the Russian probe that fired its boosters while connected to the ISS and ruined the rotation of the ISS. It may seem like i am biased about/to the Russians but these are the most recent incidents that i know of. Russian probe booster problem bbc link: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58021394 Russian anti satellite missile test wikipeadia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_1408#Destruction (already done) Megabits13 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)megabits12

Russia Threatens to Ban US Access to ISS In Retaliation To Sanctions

Source: https://www.iflscience.com/space/russia-threatens-ban-us-access-iss-retaliation-sanctions/

Done by ScottyWZ thank? Megabits13 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Megabits13

wait so what about the russians already on the ISS are they gonna be sent back down or what PlasmaticGrain (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian space chief suggests ISS could crash into US or Europe as a result of sanctions

Source: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/02/25/ukraine-russian-space-chief-suggests-iss-could-crash-into-us-or-europe-as-a-result-of-sanc

There has been talk of Russia wanting to take parts of the station for another station and seperate. If that's the case I wonder if the ISS american segment, european segment and japanese segment can be raised to GEO. This would require a lot of those roll up solar panels (10 perhaps? just a guess) and a Hall effect or ION booster module. It would take 3 years to raise it to GEO I predict during which time the ISS can't be inhabited. Delta-v says that raising from LEO to GEO is around 3.8, GTO to Moon is 3.2 Delta-V and SMART-1 did it. In the ratio of weight to power the ISS could have enough power. Seriously consider it, as I'd rather have an ISS graveyard at GEO than seeing it all come down one day. I used to think it wasn't possible but now I'm actually sure it could be done given the power panels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.58.94.22 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we add the planned Axiom Orbital Segment components to the configuration diagram?

They've obviously not launched yet, but previous versions of the configuration diagram in the infobox have included planned modules, it's just that as of the last edit to the diagram there weren't any further planned modules to be launched. NASA has now allocated actual contract money to Axiom Space for these modules, so by this page's precedent they should be added to the diagram as planned US modules (colored blue). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_Orbital_Segment SpudNutimus (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@SpudNutimus first we see some signs of a module development next we add them to the structure. That's the rule Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Orbital decay in wrong units?

The orbital decay is listed as 2km per month. But isn't orbital decay an accellerative process? As the orbit becomes lower, drag becomes greater and thus orbital decay increases over time. Where this implies it's a steady linear increase of 2km (on average?) per month. So shouldn't the units listed be meters per time squared? And the value corrected accordingly, of course.

I'm not sure if they used the 2km/month figure because it's the AVERAGE orbital decay between correction burns. Or if the ISS crew allow an orbital decay of 2km over a period of 1 month before doing a correction burn.

And given the topic is physics, using 1 month as a unit of time doesn't tell you anything useful about it since a month can vary in length by up to 3 days. So am I to assume that 1 month means 30 days? Or 4 weeks/28 days, since those are usually the figures people assume when you refer to a month as a period of time.

Is a measurement/figure not useless if you don't know the margin of error? 2605:B100:34C:9A4:0:C:E6E3:E201 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

film section update

didn't the Russians film some movie called "Вызов", or something like that, on the ISS? I'm not sure what became of that, could have just been some junk direct-to-video movie but it still might be worth a mention. Plus the planned movie involving Tom Cruise, if that's still happening Binglederry (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Challenge_(2023_film) , it actually comes out in 7 days. I'll come back and edit this in if nobody else does Binglederry (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Referencing errors

I've again reverted edits by an anonymous user because they remove referenced material, and remove a reference definition, while adding new unreferenced material. Note that the reference "rsw-2021" is used elsewhere in the article, and the removal of its definition adds a referencing error to the article and places the article in . Feel free to bring back the new material, but it should be referenced -- and should be placed without disrupting existing content. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Iss updates listed at NSF

Adding iss updates here as i cannot list them in edit summary June 9 13:15-19:45 - spacewalk (ISS U.S. EVA-87) from Quest airlock (Install iROSA 1A on the starboard truss) [Bowen, Hoburg] June 15 13:20-19:50 - spacewalk (ISS U.S. EVA-88) from Quest airlock (Install iROSA 1B on the starboard truss) [Bowen, Hoburg] June - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-59) [Equipment R&R / SM Inspection] [Prokopyev, Petelin] NET Early July - Crew Dragon Endeavour [C206.4] (Crew-6/USCV-6) undocking (from Harmony PMA 2 / IDA-F) [Exp 70: Bowen, Hoburg, Al Neyadi, Fedyaev] NET July 21 - CST-100 Starliner Calypso (Boe-CFT) launch [Wilmore, Williams] July - Cygnus "S.S. Laurel Clark" (NG-19) launch July - spacewalk (ISS Russian EVA-60) from MIM2 Poisk Module (Portable workstation transfer from MRM-1 to MLM by the ERA. MMOD shielding) [Prokopyev, Petelin] August 17 - Crew Dragon (Crew-7/USCV-7) launch [Exp 70: Moghbeli, Mogensen, Furukawa, Borisov] August 21 - Progress MS-22 (83P) undocking (from Zvezda) August 23 - Progress MS-24 (85P) launch 103.56.239.66 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Source: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32006.3300 103.56.239.66 (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

reason for eva driven is irosa coming on 4 June to iss 103.56.239.66 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Reasons for my edits considered as disruption

In List of International Space Station spacewalks page the whole thing with refs is provided about outfitting of nauka. I was just updating this article as i did back in past. It is clearly visible that there was a flaw in this page on considering all mlm outfittings as pressurized but only airlock shk is pressurized. I was completing that but page rollbackers unknowingly reverted everytime. Below is the text from spacewalks page.

VKD-56

Ninth in a series of spacewalks to outfit Nauka and to prepare ERA for operations. The spacewalkers used ERA to pick up the radiator with the arm and relocated it to Nauka at the end of the spacewalk. The spacewalkers closed valves on the nitrogen jumpers, removed covers over the nitrogen jumpers, disconnected the radiator heater cable and capped it, removed bolts and launch restraints, and transferred the radiator over to Nauka and installed it into a socket on the forward face where it will be deployed at the end of EVA 4. As part of get-ahead tasks, the spacewalkers prepared the airlock for transfer to Nauka on the next spacewalk and stowed the ERA adapter on the airlock. Because of time and issues with matting the radiator the task to jettison the covers was moved to the next spacewalk. This was the longest spacewalk of this expedition and a critical one to get the lab activated.

VKD-57

Tenth in a series of spacewalks to outfit Nauka and to prepare ERA for operations. Prokopyev and Petelin removed bolts and covers, disconnected cables and used ERA to transfer the airlock over to Nauka, where it was installed on the forward facing port. Once the airlock was installed, they mated cables and jettisoned their trash, which included hardware and covers from the previous spacewalks and this spacewalk. The spacewalk faced a delay when ERA entered an uncontrolled roll, placing the airlock out of alignment. Prokopyev and Petelin improvised with a little elbow grease, rotated the airlock into the correct position and got it latched in place. The spacewalk faced another delay when tape was found on the electrical connectors, requiring Prokopyev to cut it before the cables were connected.

VKD-58

Eleventh and final spacewalk to outfit Nauka and to prepare ERA for operations. To wrap up work on Nauka, the cosmonauts deployed the radiator, and installed nitrogen and ammonia jumpers to cool the Russian Segment and connected the radiator to electrical power, hydraulics, and mechanical connections. As a getahead task while the radiator was being filled with coolant the cosmonauts installed gap spanners on ERA's boom to allow for translation on future spacewalks.

I plead to restore my version instead of expecting a edit-revert-edit scenario or give me nod or clearance to restore my version.

I know what and how to write on wiki. I have made the Expedition 69 page. 103.27.142.111 (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Btw it's not mentioned but actually we can count Russian and us evas separatel. Russian evas are VKDs 103.27.142.111 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=1149978471&oldid=1149849752 are some of the edits like this before with full acceptance 103.27.142.111 (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Geomodelrailroader can you express your views and restore my version at my last edit as seen in the history of this page????? You can understand why i edited and what i edited (you know the topic as you were the writer of spacewalks in iss spacewalks page). If you think i was right, do the needful to restore please!🙏!🙏!🙏!🙏!🙏! 103.27.142.111 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the source of your urgency here? 331dot (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

sources like https://www.space.com/international-space-station-spacewalk-russian-radiator-may-2023 and

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2023/05/12/cosmonauts-begin-spacewalk-to-deploy-radiator/ 103.27.142.111 (talk) 15:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

this is out of my hands once I upload the article. Lately you have been conducting vandalism which is why you got reverted. On the ISS Page you used Tweets which is a no no and you did not source your work I keep telling people that. Tweets are not sources and articles from magazines cannot be used as sources because of the subscription lock. All sources need to be from NASA, Ruscosmos, Space.com, or from ESA or Jaxa in their original language sources can not contain irrelevant tweets, they cannot contain articles from Anatoli Zek or his website Russian Spaceweb or from the European channel Space Affairs. anything from here will be removed and reverted. Even I have to deal with the editors it is out of my hands once the content goes up. Geomodelrailroader (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm have no opinion on the current edit war, but surely articles from magazines cannot be used as sources because of the subscription lock sounds wrong. Articles from reliable peer-reviewed journals can be locked, but the can be used as sources! The New York Times (for example) also require subscription, but it certainly can be used as a source. Artem.G (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for late response @Artem.G @Geomodelrailroader (blocked for a week) but i need to say that refs used from other cites are done by previous editors. As you see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=1154565744&oldid=1154565441 103.27.142.111 (talk) 03:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Next i was just activating mlm outfittings. We employ separate colours for non operational and operational modules in the iss structure. There i found a flaw that mlm outfittings under pressurized section contains all of mlm outfittings where you know correctly, except mlm experiments airlock Shk is only pressurized. So i just took out mlm airlock from Nauka's description section's subsection and sent all others to unpressurized section. This subsection as per history was translated from the ru-wiki version of nauka page. I just added a ref for VKD-58 spacewalk from Anatoly Zak's page but i can easily remove it with a nasa one. This means i was clearly just updated article and nothing else. I wanted to express myself but no-one was understanding and claining me as a vandalist🤧🤧🤧🤧🤧. @Artem.G@Geomodelrailroader 103.27.142.111 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Would be better if i get the nod to do my work here (page here has page review rights so this confusion) 103.27.142.111 (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

okay but we are trying to help you next time please do not use tweets it is unprofessional and tweets are irrelevant. Geomodelrailroader (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Look I'm trying to be professional here this website is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Lately unconfirmed users are plagiarizing articles or using tweets as sources. Wiki rules say you can't do that all articles need to be sourced and tweets are irrelevant. We don't use tweets on articles the reason for the debate is we had an unconfirmed user uses a tweet from Anatoli Zek instead of an article as the source and the link went to a twitter user who has since been banned by Elon Musk. We don't use tweets in articles it is unreliable and not a creditable source. Geomodelrailroader (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Geomodelrailroader bro i understood your point you are stressing on this tweet. To bring to your note, i just added a Russian space web that i showed and assured that when i am allowed to post again i will add a ref like nasa.gov. regarding that tweet it an olden ref addition here for 6 months and not my addition. Additionally i just did shifting that doesn't require refs. So is this issue resolved????? 103.27.142.111 (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I just follow your spacewalk page. If ref i rare i will pick from that @Geomodelrailroader 103.27.142.111 (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

when you can edit again source his page do not source Twitter, we have a strict No Tweets rule at Wikipedia and all Wiki pages the reason being is Tweets are unreliable sources. If you read a tweet source the article not the tweet. Geomodelrailroader (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't actually have a strict no tweets rule. This is outlined at WP:TWITTER - essentially, it's treated like any other self-published source. Not valid for contentious claims, but if the author is a subject matter expert, writing about their area of expertise, it can be used for uncontentious material. Just sayin' - I haven't looked into this content dispute at all. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout what's the problem now????? I have started reason in this talk page discussion, so what was the error from my side. 103.56.239.113 (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

topic for your involvement @beauty school dropout 103.56.239.113 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Geomodelrailroader can you write in the way you like, my versions are reverted repeatedly. (Don't necessarily meaning i need the same thing i wrote, but just for betterment of this article, even the fact that Axiom Mission 2 has launched is getting reverted when i did these things earlier very casually https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=1149978471&oldid=1149849752 (needed refs, i will provide)) 103.56.239.113 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

okey just trying to be professional. Geomodelrailroader (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Beauty School Dropout please answer 103.27.142.111 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 highlight my flaws i will remain quiet. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&oldid=1156509429 103.27.142.111 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53 block is wrong as i have to update page listed on Lists of astronauts after Shenzhou 16 launch to Tiangong space station. 103.27.142.111 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is highlighting what my edits lack and make them different from signed up users 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺😭😭😭😭😭 (very of my annoyance and depression) 103.27.142.111 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Manticore (embarrassing to call an individual) or someone else can you intervene this matter????? Everyone is telling i am wrong but not why i am wrong. Those who said here i have changed my edits in their way but problem persists!!!!! 103.27.142.111 (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ant 24.210.25.160 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ant?????@24.210.25.160 103.27.142.111 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

please allow me to do shifting of mlm unpressurized outfittings from pressurized to unpressurized section. 103.27.142.111 (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Space_Station&diff=prev&oldid=1156509429 this is the needed edit. Every time it gets reverted, unknowingly. This is a faithful edit. 103.27.142.111 (talk) 14:48,

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Lightoil (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

About changing the crew members

@122.187.144.98: I have reverted your edit again; please do not edit the article before participating in this discussion. Leaving a link in your edit summary is not sufficient for verifiability. Please include a citation in the article when making changes in the future. For this particular edit, I recommend that you establish consensus with other editors here before implementing it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Rad my talk page discussion i wlnt like to paste stuff here again 122.187.144.98 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@122.187.144.98: I have read that discussion; the point is the same. Wikipedia requires citations in the article, not in edit summaries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 but where to add when that thing is getting removed 122.187.144.98 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@122.187.144.98: I think the entry in the infobox where the crew is mentioned is a natural place for something like this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69 added as per your request. Adding refs to infobox is a bit hard so forbade in earlier edits 122.187.144.98 (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@122.187.144.98: That's much better, thanks for making that change. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Orbital Speed -- verifiable data source

As of 28 September 2023 the "Orbital Speed" data in the summary area of this article says "7.66 km/s [failed verification]." The warning has existed since May of 2021. I propose altering the reference for the ISS Orbital Speed, but I lack the confidence to jump in and make the change including the reference -- I've tried doing this before with destructive (well, "not pretty") results.

The NASA "ISS Trajectory Data" page here: https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/trajectory_data.cfm has stable and self-updating pointers to ISS orbital ephemera. The ephemera are multiline files listing the position (x,y,z in km) and velocity (x,y,z in km/s) of the ISS at various times (in UTC). The ephemera may be downloaded at any time and the data there used to derive a velocity from the ephemera. The last line of the current (18 September 2023, 8.17PM EDT in the USA) ephemera file lists the ISS velocity as (x=6.80373806186271 km/s y=1.09358525028292 km/s z=-3.35652091564667 km/s).

The net velocity is sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2); substituting the numbers from the last line of the ephemera file we get 7.66505 km/s as an orbital speed, which agrees well with the speed in the summary.

I propose leaving the orbital speed alone, and changing the reference for orbital speed to be the NASA "ISS Trajectory Data" page, mentioned above. Mcvoorhis (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article

I am posting because my edit was reverted by Thebogthefrenzythesencuy. My understanding is that this is a good article based on this review in 2008. Has it been delisted in the mean time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The article got promoted to FA status in 2010, and got demoted in 2011. I don't see a GA nomination page for it, so that's why I reverted your edit. Hope this helps. Thebogthefrenzythesencuy (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So if it gets demoted from FA, then it then becomes GA again, no? Would you please restore the correct rating on the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The article is clearly of GA quality as of now, there is no logical reason it would be a C-class article and not a GA-class article. WalkingWiki686 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

• I propose we re-evaluate it against the WP:BCLASS criteria. (sdsds - talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Improving Lede Section

This discussion relates to recent good faith edits to improve the lede section of the article, hoping to encourage further revisions that help the article return to good article status. (sdsds - talk) 21:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on size related to method of assembly

The "largest ever" assertion is correct. It warrants the newly added link to Assembly of the International Space Station. The sentence ordering could likely be improved to bring these into closer proximity. (sdsds - talk) 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Space agencies both assembled and operate ISS

The listed space agencies (and their contractors) did assemble ISS, and continue to operate it. The lede would be improved by somehow concisely indicating that. (sdsds - talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

USOS and ROS

The change to describing these as being "operational" rather than "functional" distinctions is correct (they have quite similar functions) and details of how the segments are operated (i.e. mention of Mission Control Centers in Houston and Moscow) would improve the article. (sdsds - talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

ISS National Lab

The ISS National Lab is not part of NASA, and yet it is responsible for much of the research activity in the USOS. The article could be improved by incorporating that into the lede section. (sdsds - talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Blind reverting

Apologies to Seasider53 for the blind reverting, unintentionally occurring during overlapped edits. Thanks for your article improvements! (sdsds - talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Orbital Mass - Verifiable data

There are a few estimates of the ISS mass. NASA's current page (https://www.nasa.gov/reference/international-space-station/) says its over 400,000kg and ESA at completion says it will be about 450,000kg these are only estimates. Still the best data we have is (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/np-2015-05-022-jsc-iss-guide-2015-update-111015-508c.pdf) which states 419,725 kilograms. Other than the new ROSA panels at a mass of 325 kg each, does anyone have a better estimate of its mass. The ESA page (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ISS_International_Space_Station) appears to be a very rough estimate and is inconsistent with NASA's numbers. (User:Zygerth 17 March 2024.) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the heaviest objects page using reliable data. Does anyone have a better estimate of the ISS on orbit mass? (with or without docked vehicles as long as its clarified) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygerth (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Repairs 2024

According to ArsTechnica, there's a been a continuing air leak "NASA and the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, still have not solved a long-running and worsening problem with leaks on the International Space Station. The microscopic structural cracks are located inside the small PrK module on the Russian segment of the space station, which lies between a Progress spacecraft airlock and the Zvezda module. After the leak rate doubled early this year during a two-week period, the Russians experimented with keeping the hatch leading to the PrK module closed intermittently and performed other investigations. But none of these measures taken during the spring worked. ... However, there appears to be rising concern in the ISS program at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. The space agency often uses a 5x5 "risk matrix" to classify the likelihood and consequence of risks to spaceflight activities, and the Russian leaks are now classified as a "5" both in terms of high likelihood and high consequence." Published Jun 7, 2024. Apparently the definition of 5 in terms of probability is 1 in 10 chance. This may be nothing, but given the cause is unknown AND the leak suddenly doubled this year, it should be mentioned. I couldn't find the PrK module on the exploded 2022 diagram, nor the "Progress spacecraft airlock".98.17.181.251 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Deorbit Vehicle

With deorbit of the station on the horizon, a new article should be created about the deorbit vehicle NASA plans to develop, its still in the funding phase but enough information does exist currently 73.210.30.217 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Deorbit_Vehicle_(USDV)&redirect=no (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 23:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete the "Proposed Components" Subsection

This unsourced subsection only talks about two concept ideas, one (Nautilus-X) seems to have been cancelled back in 2011, and the other (Nanoracks "Independence-1") doesn't have a clear connection to the ISS as a future module, and from a quick Google search ("Independence-1 nanoracks"), hasn't had any news since 2018. Do these concepts and their subsection still have a place in this already bloated article then? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - there's no evidence either concept is being pursued. Nanoracks (now Voyager) are doing Starlab (space station). Nautilus-X is subsumed into Lunar Gateway. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 08:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe move them to cancelled components, and add the Axiom Modules to Proposed Components? Redacted II (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 May 2024 and 24 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Swagsberyls (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)