Talk:ISS year-long mission

One-Year / 12 Months Versus 11 Months

In light of the HI#92 vandalism, I think there is merit as a humorous and informative note in including at least one indicator / clarifier of the "Year long mission" as being closer to eleven months than twelve. Looking under the page for Scott Kelly, the description of the mission as being eleven months long predates the episode (obviously, since the episode was making reference to said page). If we are to vehemently deny the description of the mission as eleven months, then we ought to change the Scott Kelly article to reflect that. If we are not going to change said article, then I see no issue with clarifying the article (and the Mikhail Kornienko article) making said clarification. Factually speaking 342 days does come much closer to 11 months than 12 and excessively propagating it as a 12-month mission only serves to put the field of space exploration in a more positive light than necessary. It could also create unnecessary confusion for readers as to how long the mission was (See: Talk for Scott Kelly).

That said, for any Tims who may be reading, this does NOT give the right to do this to excess, ie in the title itself or in the references. If we were to do so, the article would lose its factual clarity in favor of humor.

Let me know your thoughts....

ASandyRabbit (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As a Tim myself, as soon as I heard this episode, I knew there would be trouble. I have been sitting on this article trying to strike a balance between the factual statement that yes, the mission was closer to eleven than twelve months, and descending into cheap humour. Also the fact that the mission was specifically titled Year-Long Mission by NASA should hold some merit, while being able to point out the fact that this mission did not meet a full calendar year in length. I have also been trying to think of a reasonable comment to post on this talk page, so I do have to thank you for that.

Student of Sci&Life (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the adjustment I made is appropriate, in that case? I feel it does not overstate the issue (as does the Kelly article, in fact) but makes clear to the reader what the factual duration is.

ASandyRabbit (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as it was just vandalized again, I'm almost partial of stating in in the first sentence somewhere further along, closer to the end. As much as I'm against silly 'timfoolery', the facts are on their side this time. I think if we were to phrase it:

Proposed version

The One-Year Mission was a scientific research project, conducted aboard the International Space Station over a period of 11 months, which studied the health effects of long-term spaceflight.

I'm actually fine if this were to be the compromise. This is significantly better than people constantly trying to force "(11 months)" behind the title in the first sentence. This keeps the article factual, while keeping the actual facts from joking or pointing fun at NASA's mission name. Let me know what you think, but I propose this to be our next supported change.

Student of Sci&Life (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It has been almost two full years, and the severe problems addressed in this section have yet to be fixed. Here are what I see to be the most important changes which need to be done here, at a minimum:

- Change the article title to have quotes as the top-level indicator to all readers that the mission was not one year long...

ISS "year-long mission"

- Put "year-long mission" and "one-year mission" in quotes consistently throughout the article, to highlight the fact that it fell significantly short of one full year.

- Present the best explanation which sources say as to why NASA passed this off as a "One-Year Mission".

342 days is several WEEKS short of 365 days. A full year is 52 weeks plus one or two days. Their mission did not reach a full 49 weeks. Today I added this article to the External links:

• This is why Scott Kelly's 'year in space' wasn't actually a full year (Business Insider, quoting NASA scientist: 11 months is "Close enough, right?")

But readers should not be forced to scroll to the bottom of an article before being offered some of the most basic info which would come up as a question in anyone's mind. "If it was only 342 days, why did NASA call it the "year-long mission"?!" This question needs to be answered in the lede, and again in the body. Until this gets fixed, this article is severely deficient.

There are already enough people out there who see NASA to have major credibility issues. And for gross distortion presented without explanation as to why a not-quite-49-week mission is being passed off as a "One-Year Mission" does not help NASA's reputation. For Wikipedia to uphold its NPOV policy, it needs to call people out when they lie. If you go to the official NASA 1YM website, you will find this unapologetic double speak:

- "First American to spend whole year (about 340 days) in space continuously"

NPOV will explain the significant difference between not quite 49 weeks versus 1 whole year. 340-something days is not a whole year. That is blatant misrepresentation. If this was a product NASA was selling, advertising it as a "whole year" would constitute fraud. US taxpayers did not receive what was being sold to them here (let alone international partners who contributed to funding).-- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 05:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Twin brother used a "control" was a veteran astronaut himself

The above section highlights NASA's inability to comprehend (or refusal to acknowledge) the basic distinction between 342 days versus a whole year. A clear example of bad math. Another key aspect this article does not address is bad science. Here is a quote from the FAQ page on NASA's official 1YM website:

"Twin astronauts are very rare. In fact, Scott and Mark are the first. While a few other astronauts have had, or have, a twin, there have been no other monozygotic (identical) twins where both siblings were also astronauts." (NASA Twins Study FAQ)

Good science would lead to a study where the control was an identical twin who had never been in space ever. If you want to study the effects of space, you don't compare one twin who is up there for a long time to another twin who has flown almost 2 months cumulatively on 4 different shuttle missions. Surely there is a reliable source out there which has pointed out this most obvious fact which NASA apparently chooses to ignore.

If this article were to thoroughly cover this subject, then it would identify who these other astronauts were who had identical twins who had never flown in space, and then find the reasons why NASA has not published data on comparative studies done with them.-- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)