Talk:Tianhe core module

Merging some articles

It seems strange talking on an empty page, but meh. I was wondering if it's correct to merge Tiangong 3 and CCM ? (I'll have to go and ask some people to comment here I think.Penyulap _talk 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It should not be merged. This is one module of a larger space station (think of harmony, destiny, or Zvezda and ISS).--NavyBlue84 12:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't explain well. Here I will write it as the article would show:

The Tiangong series of modules may be compared to the DOS modules of the Soviet/Russian space stations. DOS 1-6 were flown as independent modules (space stations), and DOS 7 and 8 formed the core of large modular stations (Mir and the ISS). Tiangong 1 and 2 were flown as single modules. Tiangong 3 forms the core of a larger, multiple module space station.

— Now this may be one of those 'Penyulap moments' as Craigboy would say, but this is all referenced as is, right now from the articles. They just need merging, as they are duplication, we just haven't been able to see it up until now. So tell me I'm wrong, but ref if possible

Tiangong 3 is not the large orbital station, that is the CSS, (or the large orbital station). Tiangong 3 is the core of a large multi module station, so unless there is a need to write another CSS article(please say no :)), the CSS must be it, and the CCM and T3 are the same item, make sense ? Penyulap _talk 15:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That don't really make sense. From the way the DOS articles read, they were a single module, where as Tiangong 3 is going to be 2 modules (Tiangong 3 and the CCM). I personally think that they should be kept separate.--NavyBlue84 21:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I had the impression that T3 is a single module, a core, and others are added to it, who is giving the impression that T3 is itself multi-module ? Penyulap _talk 02:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that I have taken another look at it, with fresh eyes, it says its a single module station. The Tiangong 3 article is a little all over the place, and needs some cleaning up. That being said, I still think the article should not be merged. It would be like saying all the Salyut station and mission were the same so we only need one article, or all the space shuttle's and the shuttle missions were the exact same so we only need on article for them. Each Tiangong mission and station are a little different, so each one should have its own article, and there should be an article detailing the Tiangong spacecrafts in general.--NavyBlue84 02:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that makes sense. I think the articles aren't very clear either. It seems to say that Tiangong 3 shall be the first module of a larger multi-module station. Given the timelines, I don't think it makes sense, as there would be talk of the Chinese building two large modular stations rather than one only, and that's not the case I think. It's a question of how many additional modules would be added to a testbed prior to the commencement of the CSS. Penyulap _talk 21:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiangong-3 appears to be no more, name to be either Testing Core Module or Tian He.

As of June 2016, the latest presentation show that the Chinese Space Station will have Tiangong-2 launched during 2016 and then go straight to the Testing Core Module launch in 2018. The CMSE has also stated the names of the modules, and thus it would appear that the Testing Core Module will be named Tian He. So, I think I would rather merge this with the Tiangong-3 into a Tian He article. Opinions? Baldusi (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I can gather from the CMSE news archive is that these are separate topics. The original idea seems to have been to build Small 1 -> Small 2 -> Small 3 -> Modular (including CCM/Tianhe). Small 2 & 3 were then merged into one so a third precursor was therefore never ordered. The confusion lies in the fact that "Tiangong-3" has been used to refer to both the cancelled Small 3 and the still planned Modular station. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Core Cabin Module. 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/20160914055711/http://cmse.gov.cn/uploadfile/news/uploadfile/201604/20160427104809225.pdf to http://cmse.gov.cn/uploadfile/news/uploadfile/201604/20160427104809225.pdf

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) 08:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article really be called Tianhe?

After all the article on Zarya is also not called "Functional Cargo Block" but with the actual name given to the module by its creators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymk1234 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. With no comments after more than a month, we can call this non controversial. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 01:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Core Cabin Module → Tianhe (space station module) – The official name of the space station module. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 08:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 19:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

Solar panels?

• The description says that it will have "two steerable solar power arrays"
• The schematic at the top right depicts it with four solar arrays
• On the page about the "Chinese large modular space station", the structure diagram shows it with four solar arrays, but the picture in the top right shows it with two.

How many solar arrays does Tianhe have? could somebody cite a reliable source as to how many solar arrays it will have? Thank you! 188.28.178.198 (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Italicization

I'm curious; is there any particular reason why the "Tianhe" name is not italicized in this article? It is the name of a vessel, after all. Is there any standards or practices on Wikipedia that say otherwise? — Molly Brown (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Quotes in "Tianhe Core" Module

Are the quotes recently added to

or "Tianhe Core" Module (TCM)

indicative of anything? Who/what is being quoted? @CrayonArt45: Batternut (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Orbital parameters

I am missing orbital parameters in the article, in particular inclination and (nominal) semi major axis (or equivalent height).

--Mortense (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

you can use this as reference:

https://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=48274

Akinkhoo (talk) 05:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to use the lowercase form (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Tianhe (space station module) → Tianhe Core Module – Multiple citations on the page note "Tianhe Core Module" as a name used to refer to the module in both official and third-party sources. I'm thinking it's perhaps better to use this as the name of the article, as natural disambiguation is explicitly preferred over parenthetical disambiguation in the relevant Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NCDAB and WP:QUALIFIER). — Molly Brown (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Unsinkable Molly Brown: Agree StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 20:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I could support this if you give a few sources to support usage of this as a WP:COMMONNAME, but the title would likely better be in sentence case, so Tianhe core module. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I support this. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 17:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Sure! Here's some articles from the South China Morning Post, Xinhua, SpaceNews, Sky & Telescope, CNET, the Global Times, the India Times, The Jakarta Post, and France 24, where the module is referred to as the "Tianhe core module" in lowercase. I'd like to make an argument that we could use "Tianhe Core Module" in uppercase to establish some consistency with articles such as Mir Core Module (WP:CONSISTENT), but I recognize how weak that argument might be. I apologize for my delayed response, by the way. — Molly Brown (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support move to Tianhe core module per the sources given by Molly. Re. "consistency" Mir Core Module is not even consistent with it's own lead (where "core module" is given in lowercase, which seems to support that this is how it would be referred to in running text) so it could be boldly moved to the lowercase title. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  @RandomCanadian: To be fair, NASA at least did refer to the Mir Core Module in uppercase, as was the case on their old Shuttle–Mir history website. I think we should at least leave that article alone. — Molly Brown (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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.