Talk:International Space Station programme

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Space Station programme article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe: ESA Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by ESA task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Political and financial aspects of the ISS. -- Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that the Criticism of the International Space Station article be merged into this one, as it is short enough to serve as a good section on the main P&FA article, being quite small on its own, and the whole point of splitting this article off from the main International Space Station article was to contain such material in one place. Colds7ream (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're both fairly short and the scopes overlap enough. I'm down for it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the articles are different enough to merit their own articles. I slightly altered the criticism section in the other article to target the ISS only rather than both the ISS and NASA. The distinction is made because NASA is responsible for a large number of projects not limited to the ISS. As such, the ISS's failure should not be blamed entirely on NASA. For example, NASA could cut funding for the project and ESA/JAXA/RSA could take over the project and that would be OK with me! TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to point out that in many of the space articles such as Apollo 8, and others, the focus is entirely on the scientific aspects of a project rather than it's cost. It is important to take economics into consideration before attempting any project. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those points are indeed correct, however, in response to the first point, the P&FA article deals with, in theory, ALL political of the station, including in Europe, Russia, etc., and so the criticism article would fit in well in the main article. As for the second point, that is indeed what we're doing - the primary International Space Station article deals with the hardware itself, whereas this article deals with political (including criticism) and financial issues. Colds7ream (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that putting humans in Low Earth Orbit for extended periods of time is not a very smart idea. There isn't anything in space to survive off of. Mars Reconaissance Orbiter, Kepler Mission, and Hubble Space Telescope are examples of much cheaper science missions with a much higher tangible output of scientific research. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way, in my opinion, to expand the manned space program is to boost a large amount of supplies such as water, food, and equipment to the moon or mars before sending humans to colonize there. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle that the Criticism article should be merged here, but I think that the criticism article is one sided, and has WP:POV issues. The criticisms are not countered, or discussed with people who are in favor of the ISS. Martin451 (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't see the ISS as being a sustainable living environment because of a number of flaws. 1) no propulsion, except from expensive space shuttle flights, 2) no natural ecosystem with plant life, 3) no power except solar panels, 4) rapid orbital decay. 5) See Lunar outpost (NASA) for a more worthwile mission TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but that's not what's being discussed here - this is a section for discussion on the merging of one article into another, not the pros and cons of the space station from the point of view of us. I agree on the POV, by the way - it's going to need some work. Colds7ream (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The layout with criticism in the "See Also" section is exactly the same as in the "Google" article. When I as a taxpayer am forced to pay 100 billion for a project of questionable credibility, I want those responsible to be held accountable. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of that comment... Colds7ream (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having heard two voices in favour, I'm going to execute the merge. I feel that TeH nOmInAtOr raises good points about the operation of the station, but they don't seem to be relevant to the merge process itself. Further investigation shows this article to be an almost word-for-word copy of the Criticism section, and so I think we have a good case for merging. Colds7ream (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move to International Space Station program. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that we change the name of this article by moving it to International Space Station programme, in line with articles such as Space Shuttle programme. I believe that the current name is unwieldy, and, with a bit of work, this article could come to describe the broader topic of the ISSP in its entirety. Colds7ream (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support, I agree with moving, but we should wait until the RFC closes to determine whether "programme" or "program" should be used in the title. --G W… 10:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I an have it either way - "programme" or "program". Themanwithoutapast (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a separate "programme" article should be written, since this deals more with the international politics of the station. Another article focusing more on the programme should be written. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, you see - for this project, more than any other, it's the international politics that 'are the programme. Colds7ream (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But only to International Space Station program. To my knowledge it is largely a joint U.S. - Russian program, with a smattering of EU and other participation. It is intentionally a broad international program, but I do not recall programme as being either a U.S. or Russian spelling. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think it is a good idea. It will allow us to make a proper distinction between the management aspects of the "concept" of the International Space Station, contrasted to the "object". While the latter is the most visible to many and should definitely be the main article, the program itself has many interesting elements that deserve a good article as well. This article is well suited for that basis I think. A good introduction to mark the difference between those two ideas however is KEY in avoiding confusion. Also, I was thinking that perhaps it might be an idea to call it International Space Station programs instead. Since it are actually many separate programs from several nations. The british vs. american issue is irrelevant and can easily be solved when the other discussion has reached it's end. I don't think anyone will mind if we extend that into this article. Most of this article is from the original ISS article anyways. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to International Space Station program for the reasons expressed in other places. The major supporter and the language of the English communications is American English. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the language issue separate, it has no point in this discussion, this is about changing the very nature of this specific article. The language issue will be dealt with separately. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving International_Space_Station#Station_operations to International Space Station program[edit]

I feel this section can be moved over the International Space Station program, particularly the Mission control centres section, as it deals with ground (program) operations.

Also, the International_Space_Station#Politics.2C_utilization_and_financing section is basically a copy of the International Space Station program article. We should shorten it and make it more of a summary instead of a copy.

I will go about moving and creating summaries on April 10, 2010 if there is no objection.Aalox (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in International Space Station program[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of International Space Station program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SSSM":

From Mir: David Harland (30 November 2004). The Story of Space Station Mir. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN 978-0-387-23011-5.
From Shuttle–Mir Program: David Harland (November 30, 2004). The Story of Space Station Mir. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. ISBN 978-0-387-23011-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixedAalox (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that several of the references in the main article are now closed to commentary - e.g. criticism. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up citations[edit]

I decided to trim two of the three cite tags and removed them. I couldn't find any references in the main ISS article that had the information I removed. I doubt they would be missed. As for the third cite tag, I really think "In addition, the exchange rate between ruble and USD is not adequately giving a real comparison to what the costs for Russia really are." isn't needed, and is in violation of WP:OR. I hesitate on this last one only because it was Citation Needed this year instead of years ago. Cold7Realm, I know you suggested I wait, but I didn't trim out too much and thought this might be acceptable. Please revert if you disagree. Aalox (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in International Space Station program[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of International Space Station program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WashPost eliminates funds":

From Constellation program: "NASA budget for 2011 eliminates funds for manned lunar missions". Washington Post. February 1, 2010. Retrieved February 1, 2010.
From Apollo program: Achenbach, Joel (February 1, 2010). "NASA budget for 2011 eliminates funds for manned lunar missions". Washington Post. Retrieved February 1, 2010.

Reference named "BBC cancels Moon return":

From Constellation program: "Obama cancels Moon return project". Retrieved March 7, 2010.
From Orion (spacecraft): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8489097.stm
From Apollo program: "Obama cancels Moon return project". BBC News. February 1, 2010. Retrieved March 7, 2010.

Reference named "FY2011_budget":

From Apollo program: "Terminations, Reductions, and Savings" (PDF). Retrieved March 7, 2010.
From Orion (spacecraft): http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/trs.pdf

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zarya Ownership[edit]

The sentence (Zarya, although constructed and launched by Russia, has been paid for and is officially owned by NASA) I suggest this is not supported properly by any links. Ownership of the Zarya module is Russian, according to everything substantiated I can find. It's part of the ROS, and RSA has plans that include it's use for OPSEK.

Does anyone have any link or information to substantiate the claim that Zarya is owned by NASA, funding issues aside ?Penyulap (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Russia plans to buy back Zarya and include it in OPSEK. If memmory serves, they were talking about trading soyuz services for Zarya, but as far as I know the OPSEK project is still up in the air. BTW, on matters like this, Google is your friend :) --U5K0 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on International Space Station program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Space Station program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206183659/http://www.space.com:80/spacenews/archive04/budgetarch_090704.html to http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/budgetarch_090704.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Space Station program. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 00:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on International Space Station program. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Space Station program. 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://archive.is/20130128194640/http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18482 to http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18482

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 07:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]