Talk:ISS ECLSS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISS ECLSS 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: Space stations Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the space stations working group.

Merge proposal

I'd like to suggest the merging of Elektron (ISS), Oxygen Generating System and Air Revitalization System into this article, as they are small, stub articles that don't particularly need to be standalone, and would be better served as sections here. I'd also like to suggest Life support system#International Space Station is merged here, as most of its content is duplicated both here and at the main ISS article. I also think that the paragraph on life support systems at Zvezda (ISS module) could be moved here, and a section written up on the Chemical oxygen generators used on ISS. As always, comments are greatly appreciated. Colds7ream (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a week has gone by with no dissenting voices, so I'm going to execute the merge. Colds7ream (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It appears the merger has put information into this ISS-related article that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article, or the ISS. I have tagged the first bit of it, so it may be removed in due course if no relevance is shown. N2e (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Vozdukh was the first CO2 removal system sent to the station, and is still present. How exactly is this irrelevent? Colds7ream (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, the Vika is used as a backup system on ISS too - why have you suddenly decided to demand the removal of seemingly random sections? The USOS is not the entire station, the Russians do have a presence on it, you know. Colds7ream (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, I am only working to improve the encyclopedia. I missed the connection in the prose that is in the article. I'll work on cleaning it up when I get a chance. Now, to your statement that I was "demand[ing] the removal" of anything. Please look again. I think you will find that you have misinterpreted what I wrote. Asking for citations, and then having citations be provided, would of course answer the question about relevance to the article, wouldn't it? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm so used now to US-centric editors demanding sweeping changes to articles about this international project its become a reflex reaction... Colds7ream (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Happy to continue working for a better article, and a better encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waste heat dissipation

There appears to be no description of the ISS system(s?) for waste heat dissipation into space in any Wikipedia article. How big is it? How much heat can it dissipate into space? How much power does it take to run it? What is the mass of the waste heat rejection system? Etc. Does anyone have a good source for this? N2e (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point - although to be honest this entire article is in dire need of some expansion. Colds7ream (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a source for some info on the ISS Thermal Control System. It is in a pretty massive assemblage of photographs (some stunning) photographs with some textual descriptions at a web page called the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION TOUR. Great graphics of how the thermal control system works! And includes an explanation of both active and passive design approaches to heat rejection from the spacecraft. About 3/4 the way to the bottom of the huge web page, I found this text:

"The Thermal Control System (TCS) maintains ISS temperatures within defined limits.

"The four components used in the Passive Thermal Control System (PTCS) are insulation, surface coatings, heaters, and heat pipes.

"The Active Thermal Control System (ATCS) is required when the environment or the heat loads exceed the capabilities of the PTCS. The ATCS uses a mechanically pumped fluid in closed-loop circuits to perform three functions: heat collection, heat transportation, and heat rejection.

"Inside the habitable modules, the internal ATCS uses circulating water to transport heat and cool equipment. Outside the habitable modules, the external ATCS uses circulating ammonia to transport heat and cool equipment."

Although this is not exactly a fully [{WP:RS|reliable source]], it does provide a great deal of info that we did not previously have, and may provide some useful search terms for any editor who would like to do further research. N2e (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an online version of the ISS Reference Guide (Amazon link) - definitely a reliable source. Colds7ream (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup/expansion

I just came to this article in recent days, and frankly, misread some of it because is seems to be a bit of a hodgepodge of material that hasn't been written in a good encyclopedic way. I'd like to help improve it, but would appreciate it if other editors would play a simultaneous role in improving it. I would help write some contextual prose around the existing material, but it would be quite helpful to have others read/modify that, as well as find sources for a lot of the currently unsourced material. Who's up for this? N2e (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For class, I have been researching the water reclamation part of the ECLSS and there have been a couple of iterations. I also saw that there have been at least 2 generations of ECLSS on the US side of the ISS Just a heads up. I will post on here after I turn in my HW :) -Billy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnvalliant (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article - could include thermal control

In looking a bit more at the "ISS Tour" source I listed above, I realize the the "ISS ECLSS" is defined fairly narrowly, and would seem to explicitly (using NASA's terminology) NOT include the thermal control and waste heat rejection part of the environmental control. Viz, as this article is currently titled, it would seem that the thermal control heat aspects of not be in-scope to the broader subject of ISS "environment". I believe this is an artifact of NASA naming conventions. This is covered on pp 52 of that source; page down about 2/3 of the way in the giant html page of images—the NASA "ISS ECLSS" explicitly leaves out the thermal/heat aspect of the environment. On the other hand, we do see that "ECLSS" and "environmental control and life support system" is also used more broadly in the design of other spacecraft systems. For example, it appears Bigelow Aerospace is using the term in the broader sense: how to control all aspects of the spacecraft interior environment for the humans that might be in there.

But this article is about the ISS system. So what to do? We could start a new Wikipedia article on the ISS Thermal Control System. Or we might intentionally broaden this article, to go beyond NASA's narrow use, and speak to all aspect of the environmental control, including thermal control and heat rejection—possibly with the need to rename the (now broader) article. I could support either approach, but thought it worthwhile to discuss here first lest a new article get created that would shortly thereafter be merged back into this one. What think others? N2e (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest we just put the thermal control systems in this article, and I don't really see a need to rename it; a redirect from ISS thermal control system would probably be fine. Colds7ream (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on the inclusion of thermal control for the ISS into this article. That works for me. So unless someone else weighs in in the next week or so, looks like we have a consensus on the scope question. On the appropriate name, I'm not so sure; but that can properly be left for later on. N2e (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NASA reports that describe the life support systems and the internal thermal control system onboard the ISS can be found on the NASA Technical Report Server, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp The reports are "Living Together in Space: The Design and Operation of the Life Support Systems on the International Space Station" (NASA TM-1998-206956) [Note: only volume one is available, Volume two is distribution restricted.] and "Living Together in Space: The International Space Station Internal Active Thermal Control System Issues and Solutions - Sustaining Engineering Activities at the Marshall Space Flight Center, 1998-2005" (NASA TM-2007-214964). Uptous2 (talk) 07:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NASA References for ISS Life Support and Thermal Control Systems descriptions

NASA reports that describe the life support systems and the internal thermal control system onboard the ISS can be found on the NASA Technical Report Server, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp The reports are "Living Together in Space: The Design and Operation of the Life Support Systems on the International Space Station" (NASA TM-1998-206956) [Note: only volume one is available, Volume two is distribution restricted.] and "Living Together in Space: The International Space Station Internal Active Thermal Control System Issues and Solutions - Sustaining Engineering Activities at the Marshall Space Flight Center, 1998-2005" (NASA TM-2007-214964). Uptous2 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Power requirements

I think it would be good to say somewhere that The ISS uses 10.64 kW for its oxygen generation and life support ECLSS [1] Robert Walker (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was that before the ESA ACLS was installed ? Could say how much of the 10.64 kW was for OGS, WRS, 2010-Sabatier system ... - Rod57 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elektron-VM maintenance

Nimuda wrote:

The three Elektron units on Zvezda are the last of its kind. The original manufacturers who made them in the 1980s and 1990s have gone out of business, so replacing them is not an option. And more importantly, the single engineer who made final tweaks to the Elektrons that were exclusively for the Zvezda and the ISS died in the early 2000s with all his knowledge and secrets not being passed to anybody else. The ISS version of the Elektron is called the Elektron-VM. It is impossible to simply replace broken Elektrons like how in the US Orbital Segment they can easily switch out the 41.3 inch (105 cm) wide International Standard Payload Racks thanks to the 51 inch (130 cm) wide hatch openings of the modules that are connected via the Common Berthing Mechanism. They are stuck on the ISS permanently and the only option for cosmonauts onboard is to repair them manually. <ref> https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna5953450 . Retrieved 14 December 2020. </ref><ref> https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/crew/exp1/exp1_presskit.pdf . Retrieved 14 December 2020</ref>

The bit about the single engineer who died sounds like an interesting anecdote. Perhaps it is an exaggeration of the truth. I can't find it in any other source. The bit about the Elektron-VM units being stuck on the ISS permanently contradicts the NBC reference which said in 2004 that the original electrolyzers would be replaced by NASA in 2005. The cited NASA press kit doesn't seem to have any relevant information. So I removed the paragraph on the basis that it seems to be a rough approximation to the truth, needing better citations. Maybe there are better sources available in Russian? It's permissible to cite sources written in another language. -- Tim Starling (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimuda (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC) The author of that article, James Oberg, is a HUGE space buff and human spaceflight expert. He was a NASA space engineer for many decades so he is not just a journalist-expert. He knows the nuts and bolts about the Russian space program (and the Chinese program too). I have no idea how I can find his Russian language articles or literature or sources. He really likes to give the truth about safety issues with human spaceflight and not sugarcoat the extreme danger that NASA and Roscosmos have faced during their whole existences, especially the Shuttle-Mir and ISS era (and most people think spaceflight, especially the ISS and Soyuz, is just routine and 'boring' since nobody talks about what Oberg warns about and many people have completely forgotten the two near catastrophic disasters during the Shuttle-Mir program in 1997). Oberg is the one who brought the information into the mainstream about an actual firearm/gun on Soyuz capsules and the Russian segment of the ISS and Mir as well as other information that only cosmonauts and Russian insiders (and NASA people who don't work in public relations) would know about. I don't want to plug his website or anything but look him up. Very interesting man. If you do not trust him then that is okay too for the purposes of the Wikipedia article.[reply]

Garbled content from poorly written source.

The source ACLS-ESA makes inaccurate claims which have been imported to the article as impossible claims, as they imply chemical reactions producing elements out of nowhere. I tried to fix, but the source is in error and will not support a corrected description. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the source also provides accurate information under the header "Process", and only the introductory part is inaccurate/confusing, so I have rewritten to try to fix the errors. It does seem that the same information is repeated at least once in the article, some of it maybe twice if it is just the one Sabatier reactor on board. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]