Jump to content

Talk:Nauka (ISS module)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the Usage section it states that "It will be docked onto the Zvezda module nadir docking port." however, on the picture it shows the MLM docked to the Zarya module. Can somebody clear that up please?

Thanks

no, it is to be attached to the Zvezda module as with it's original plan. the MRM1 is attach to the Zarya. the confusion arise because "Zvezda module nadir docking port" is currently occupied by the Pirs, but they will move it to make room for the bigger module. 218.186.13.1 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info

[edit]

Once docked, the MLM will provide dedicated research capabilities to the Russian Segment, including an experiment airlock and European Robotic Arm (ERA) for external research, and also an additional sleep station, thus increasing the ISS’ living accommodation from its current six crewmembers, to seven. When coupled with the two sleep station “kayutas” in the SM, the MLM will allow all three Russian crewmembers to seep in their own segment, meaning a sleep station will be freed up in the US Segment of the station. This will allow for a four-person crew in the US Segment of the station, something NASA is actively looking to provide once the commercial crew provides come online with their additional seats. With three Russian, three American, and one international astronaut aboard the ISS as was originally envisioned, more crew hours will be available for research activities...--Craigboy (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Launch date

[edit]

Rumor has it that the launch has been delayed again, this time to Spring 2014, will not add to article until we have a ref.Craigboy (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012-03-30
Russian Space Agency head, Vladimir Popovkin, promises to do everything in his power to launch the Multi-purpose Laboratory Module (MLM) to the International Space Station in 2013. (Russian)--Craigboy (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html, (Updated - March 8, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. EST) gives a specific launch date of 11 December 2013. GramlerGrindstone (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC) GramlerGrindstone (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The launch has slipped to April 2014. I'm unsure when that news will become official to the public.--Craigboy (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor has it the launch has slipped to September 2014.--Craigboy (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Launch has slipped to April 2015.--Craigboy (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors are that the launch has slipped to September 2015.--Craigboy (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Launch has slipped to November 2015.--Craigboy (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaly Lopota of RSC Energia is saying the launch will probably slip to 2016.--Craigboy (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor has it that the launch has slipped to February 2017.--Craigboy (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors were true, Anatoly Zak has the story. --Craigboy (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors are that there isn't a lot of confidence in the new date. A much larger delay is most likely coming.--Craigboy (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nauka (ISS 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the logo is just coming back due to the issue being resolved with the man who nominated this file for deletion Chinakpradhan (talk) 167:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On it's way to oblivion? 😔

[edit]

Major faults put the mission at risk.

The main concern is the main engine, which is currently nonoperational. Secondary engines were fired in an emergency maneuver to prevent quick de-orbiting and destruction.

Further faults are failure to deploy solar panels, no response from the docking system, response errors on attitude system and failure of an infra-red sensor.

RosCosmos, get your shit together! אילן שמעוני (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN/C

[edit]

Nauka "successfully docked on 29 July 2021, 13:29 UTC to Zvezda's nadir port."
Since the nom. of its launch was rejected a week ago, we probably ought to post the docking at ITN/C. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using Tweets and unapproved sources in articles

[edit]

Why are people using tweets? Wikipedia has made it policy on articles regarding space no tweets or articles from Russian Spaceweb or Aviation Today are suppose to be used as sources. This is speculation, they are plagiarizing their source when it does not fallow the approved format, and this article is suppose to use content from an approved source those being Roscosmos, NASA, ESA, and the Associated Press. Content from Twitter needs to be verified with a source from the websites I mentioned it can not come from a magazine or book, it can not come off of chatrooms like Facebook or Twitter and photos can not come from Pinterest Instagram or Flickr, and Wikipedia is not an archive and tweets get deleted every few days if they are irrelevant. All sources need to come from the host website you can not use a tweet as your source and it can not be a chat discussion. Anything that is not official content needs to be deleted from this page and the source you got from the tweet needs to be used not the tweet itself. When sourcing magazines they need to be current, there can not be subscription holds, and it can not have opinions, speculation, or propaganda or it will be rejected. Russian Spaceweb and Aviation Today along with their sister magazines Popular Mechanics and Aviation Week can not be used they are not peer reviewed sources, their information is wrong, none of the articles are current, using photos from them is a breach of copyright, they are propaganda in Russian Space Web's case, and Wikipedia does not allow them as sources. I have peer reviewed several papers in my life time this page needs to be professional and any item that is not a government source needs to be deleted. This is not a blog, this is not an archive, and this is not a chatroom this is a wiki article and an online encyclopedia. If any of you did this in high school or collage I will send back your papers and give you an F and here you can be banned for using illegal sources. Please source your work don't use anything from third party magazines like Russian Spaceweb or Aviation Today and don't plagiarize tweets or get anything off of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, or Flicker these need to be approved sources for more information read this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Geomodelrailroader (talk) 22:22 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

don't know why the structure image File:Artists Conception of Nauka Module Structure.gif was moved out of infobox, when fgb (zarya) and zvezda has a structure image in infobox please give valid reasons for removing out of infobox Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chinakpradhan: I was hoping to make it easier for readers, especially on on smaller screens, to have the "Description" section illustrated by directly planting the diagram in the section itself. It would also relieve the length of the infobox, which was starting to get a bit too large. Do we really need two images in an infobox when one should suffice in helping the reader identify the subject of an article? It is the intended purpose of an infobox, after all (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). — Molly Brown (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO both of you are right, but I think that structure is important and do belong to the infobox. From the photo of the module it's not really clear what are the parts of it used for, and this image helps to understand it better. Artem.G (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hey i know that you need the page to be shortened but that doesn't mean that the logo will be removed . logo shows many thing that that are not seen and displayed by text and spacecraft images please do not remove the launch logo again. your edits created thing that have led the logo to be deleted. kindly i beg you all dont do this again. see tghe era page never removed era patch because it has value there. treat nauka logo like that only please Chinakpradhan (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally right said by artemg Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19 delays

[edit]

Section about Covid-19 delays seems to be very long, longer than most of the sections about module itself. Maybe it can be trimmed? Chinakpradhan (talk ¡ contribs), The Unsinkable Molly Brown (talk ¡ contribs), what do you think? Artem.G (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G: That's what I've been doing as we speak, actually! — Molly Brown (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks a lot! :) Artem.G (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a big idea raise a discussion like timeline of nauka construction and place the whole history there and if it will be accepted then do it and a add a reference tag to this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on no. Of porthole on nauka is one or more than one

[edit]

Is there only one porthole on Nauka Module? Later examination shows that though this is the major porthole. There are some minor porthole on nauka. So what to do? Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Vehicles visiting the ISS at the time of Nauka's docking” graphic is wrong

[edit]

Nauka launched and docked in July 2021 yet the Cygnus that launched and docked in August is marked as already present during Naukas docking.

SherlockKamik (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nauka_(ISS_module)&oldid=1204214777"