Jump to content

Talk:International Space Station/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

List of unmanned spaceflights to the ISS

Does anyone have suitable knowledge and/or access to information to make a List of unmanned spaceflights to the ISS? I think it's rather a good idea to make one. Ropers 18:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have added such a list. It mostly consists of Progress cargo flights. Rusty 16:10, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ready to be nominated for feature article?

This article has improved from head-to-toe since I last saw it. Is it ready to be nominated for a feature article? Astudent 13:20, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

  • Um... I don't think so yet... "ISS Spacewalks", "Visiting manned spacecraft and crews" and "Visiting unmanned spacecraft" needs a summary first. --Andylkl 15:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

list of foregin modules delivered to NASA

Is node2 already delivered to NASA and is ready for launch?
Is Cupola delivered to NASA ? if not, what is the progress and expectations
Are japanese modules are delivered to NASA ?
is russian SPP is delivered to NASA?
etc. - I have seen somewhere such a list, but can't remember where...
also maybe this information about the status of the individual modules should be added to their respective pages and not in a merged list...

count, places, capabilities of docking locations

Can someone try to count and locate the various docking ports of the current (and future) ISS configuration?

three PMAs for Shuttle / HIIs
some docking locations for Soyous/Progress/ATV on Zarya, Zvezda, Pris, UDM, etc.
one airlock with russian spacesuits, one with both russian and american (are there REALY russian spacesuits in the Quest airlock, or it is only POSSIBLE to use them from there)

Soyouz and Progress flights, brought from NASA

count of Soyouz and Progress flights that NASA has brought from Russia - so we can see how much more are left... This should be stated somewhere in the foundation treatry and/or later annexes...

ISS Secret?

How come we never seem to see the space station on TV or hear about it on the radio or read about it in the papers? Most of the worlds biggest economies are pumping $100 billion into this project and you would think that the goings on up there would be mentioned in the popular mainstream media.

It's as though the thing were a secret.

Holden 27

  • OK, two guys spinning about the Earth once every 90 minutes. Very newsworthy. Especially considering that all they seem to do up there is take up space. A 2-man ISS is worthless scientifically and practically. The only point in having them up there has been to maintain "a continuous presence" in space. Consequently, you're lucky if the major media outlets report the crew changes and major crises abord the station. And some of them do. I don't see where you're coming from. --Alexwcovington 10:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well if you have Dish Network or DirecTV (I don't know about Bell ExpressVu) you can watch NASA TV and they have ISS Mission coverage everyday and most of the time the astornauts scheduals seem quite full and busy. As busy as a 2 person crew can get. But I do think that they should increase the crew to 3 as soon as the space shuttle program is running again. Anyway with news stations focused on more "exciting" issuses like scandals, wars, to anything else they think will grab there attention (basically anything with shock value). People don't seem to be that interested in the ISS when the news comes in with there shock stories, scandals, and there ocassional human interest story(aka Pre-recorded time filler). --Silver86 01:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You can also watch NASA TV online [1]35.11.183.95 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the ISS

It seems like this section doesn't cover the purpose of the ISS as much as a discussion regarding cost/benefit. Isn't the actual purpose to carry out scientific research in many areas, and to prepare for future missions into deep space? And shouldn't things like that go in the section about the purpose, and cost/benefit into another section?

It also might be nice to reference the science that has already been done. There is a lot of data at http://www.scipoc.msfc.nasa.gov/factchron2.html - it'd be interesting to know how the experiements turned out, what we've learned, etc --noösfractal 21:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Today the artical has no 'purpose' section and I find that lacking as I read the artical and wonder what are the goals of the ISS? It seems the article is incomplete without the purpose of having ISS. WilliamKF 04:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Two words: Space Gold. --NEMT 23:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

number of Soyouz/Progress flights agreed between Russia and the others?

Somewhere in the official documents about the ISS (and latter adjustments to the plan) there is a number of Soyouz and Progress veichcles that Russia will get payment (or barter deals) for. Examples (correct me if I am wrong)- the Zaraya is russian built/launched/operated, but US payed/own component. The SPP is russian payed/built/operated/own, but US launched component (barter deal - the US launches the SPP as part of 'payment' in return for other Russia services - Progress/Soyouz flights and other things.)

  • These payment/barter deals were agreed before even the first ISS flight and were calculated for many years in advance. Of course some of the Progress/Soyouz flights are just Russia contribution without barter deal.
  • The number of barter S/P flights were calculated be so much that to end when the other participating states have the vechicles needed to fullfill their commitments on their own (the CRV as replacement for Soyouz, the ATV, HTV and Shuttle-when-no-more-major-components-have-to-be-launched as replacement for Progress) - then Russia will launch only so much Progress (and maybe no Soyouz) to cover its own comittmets, without additional flights to cover for NASA/ESA/etc.
  • When the CRV was removed from the plan it looked as more Soyouz-capsules will be needed than previously calculated (the CRV was meant as escape-capsule-replacement for Soyouz) how was this accounted for?
  • After the Columbia disaster there were more Progress flights than previously calculated (to compensate for the supplies that should be delivered by Shuttles). These flights are actualy executed already between 2003 and 2005... Something has to had been negotiated between Russia and the other participants, becouse it looks like previously agreed Progress flights will be exhaused soon and the bills have to be covered somehow... Maybe NASA will launch the Russian Science module? Or more russian cosmonauts/tourists will get seats in Shuttle/Soyouz flights?

Anyway it would be good to have such section on the page that describes the money-aspect of the partnership - wich agency/country supplies what and when, in return for what, when, etc. Also - what is the state of Node3 - it is removed from the plan, but becouse it is a barter deal between NASA/ESA it looks like it will be build (by ESA) anyway (or is already built?), so maybe it would be launched someday after all other elements are on orbit?

X-38 Crew Return Vehicle

I think a more in-depth mention should be made to the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, the emergency lifeboat cancelled under false claims of budget over-runs by the Bush administration in 2001/2002 that would have allowed the ISS to have its originally planned 7 person crew and thus actually get some scientific work done as opposed to the current 2/3 person crew who spend the bulk of their time simply keeping it operational and are SOOL if there is an emergency and they need to leave in a Soyuz. – LamontCranston 05:49, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • The claims were far from false and the X-38 -- the project was far from even basic development. The X-38 wouldn't have allowed a 7 person crew either. However, a link to the X-38 article where these issues could be expanded on would be appropriate.

subzero788

  • Actually the reason the crew has been kept at two persons is due to supply issues; with the space shuttle grounded station resupply is dependant on soyuz and progress spacecraft that can deliver much less critical supplies such as food, water, oxygen, fuel etc than the space shuttle can. Regardless, at the moment the idea is to have a 6 man crew with two 3-man Soyuz "lifeboats" by 2008. It would be pointless having a 7 man crew anyway when both NASA's new crew exporation vehicle and the Russian Kliper will only be able to carry 6 astronauts.

Radio Call Sign Alpha Reason

The article says that Goldin was "stunned" when the first ISS crew requested the call sign "Alpha", but does not explain why. What is so stunning about the request? Why did the crew request the call sign? Could someone please elaborate on this? Thanks Jimaginator 11:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

UK choosed not to participate

Article reads: with members United Kingdom, ... choosing not to participate; But Expedition 1's crew picture lists UK flag. Why that? Or did they withdrew?

Just curious. Ilyak 00:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I find that strange too. Coz on other sites, such as Discovery Channel's ISS site, the UK and Portugal flag is on there. anon
The UK has signed the original agreement partaining to the ISS. However it is not an ESA member participating in the ISS project (thus the flag is there, but the UK still has no role in the program). Themanwithoutapast 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

new element list is worse than the old, IMO

  1. CAM was not to be attached to Node3, but to Node2.
  2. maybe there are more factual errors.
  3. The previous list was much "cleaner" - details were on the elements main pages - now the section has very bad overview, compared to the previous version.
  • There is a link to the list of ISS modules launched and scheduled to be launched. Main articles on wikipedia should include text rather than lists. If someone wants to look at an overview, he should click on the ISS assembly list link or the table at the bottom of the section listing all the modules. Please point out other errors, so I can correct them. Thx. Themanwithoutapast 18:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
the Science Power Platform is missing from the "canceled" section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Space_Station/Archive_2&oldid=457482717"