Talk:ISS assembly sequence

Universal Docking Module

You say the Universal Docking Module was 'cancelled', but it seems to me that although the original design has been cancelled, many sources (for example the NASA website) are just now calling FGB-2 the Universal Docking Module. Also I'm finding it hard to find out what happened to the Russian "Enterprise" Multipurpose Module (MTsM) - according to http://www.geocities.com/i_s_s_alpha/2007.htm#3R it was renamed the Multipurpose Laboratory Module.. but this is not at all what the MLM article says. So if someone has a clear understanding of what's going on (that link does explain things, though somewhat confusingly.. and i haven't been able to verify it yet..), then they should probably explain (citing their sources, of course). Mlm42 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If you understand some russian, you can try to read this article [1] at Novosti Kosmonavtiki site. There you get all infos about the current status of russian ISS modules. Here a small summary from me (sorry for bad english): Universal Docking Module (UDM) and Science Power Platform were simplified by 2001, UDM was later cancelled completely (I think so, they write nothing about its cancellation in this article). "Enterprise" Multipurpose Module was a commercial project, but money to build it couldn't be found, so 2003 it was replaced by the Multipurpose Laboratory Module, which will be funded completely by the Russian Space Agency and is now due to launch by 2007. It will be based on the FGB-2 module, which was build as a replacement for Zarya and is already for years 70% completed. --Bricktop 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. pictures of FGB-2 at Khrunichev: [2], [3] --Bricktop 08:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Future dates

How can the dates and space shuttles of the missions after STS-120 be here, while the NASA web site shows that they are TBD. [4] --Mark Riehm 07:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

NASA appears to be maintaining a Consolidated Launch Manifest with at least some of the details described in the table. I've updated the table based on today's version of that document and noted the refresh in the intro paragraph. I've also fact-tagged the statement about "NASA Assembly Sequence Revision H", as there is no specific citation for that document. One notable discrepency between CLM and this "Rev H" document is that the shuttles are not specifically identified. I've left the names in place where the schedules matched up, but just mentioned "Space Shuttle" for any new table elements I added. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I went looking for a citation for Rev H of the Assembly Sequence, and I can only find Rev F from the NASA website. There's a copy of it on the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine" which I'm adding as an additional reference for the time being. Jeffq, could you document the origin the Rev H document you're using? Srain 06:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "this 'Rev H' document", I was referring to the claim in the article:

The future components of the list are according to NASA Assembly Sequence Revision H.

which I tagged for a citation precisely because I couldn't find this myself. My point was that the article (at least as of 9 September) implied that its content came from this missing document. If all we have is a Rev. F, we should update the article to reflect that (and any other reliable source we can find, of course). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Rev H" is a myth. I went to look at the Consolidated Launch Manifest (Ref above) and it appears to be the source for the future dates. I'll change the text and reference. Thanks! Srain 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ATV Assembly?

For preference, I'm an adder, not a deleter. But should the ESA ATV flight be included as an "assembly" flight? The argument could be made that it will act as an extra room while it's attached, but then what about Progress? Srain 16:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. as far as I know no integral part of the ISS will be taken in orbit by ATV or HTV. Both are also in the List of unmanned spaceflights to the ISS-article. I'm being bold and will remove them. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NASA Logo Protection

File:Logo-nasa-800px.png

NASA logo

Can someone direct me to a discussion of the NASA logo and its usability? I can't seem to locate one, but it seems like it must have been discussed somewhere... Thanks! Srain 14:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The diff for the change is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISS_assembly_sequence&diff=134954184&oldid=124590245. In the change log comment, User:Iamunknown references Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. That the "meatball" logo is not included in the general NASA public-domain clause is covered on the description page for the logo image. Hope this helps! (sdsds - talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. The relevant quote from NASA is "[Nasa logos] may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including Web pages) that are not NASA sponsored." Wikipedia fails on both counts (not NASA employees, not sponsored by NASA). The ESA logo is restricted slightly differently (see http://esamultimedia.esa.int/multimedia/ESA_Logo/conditions.html) "Use of the [logo] files is restricted to work under contract with ESA and to publications which have ESA or an ESA programme as the main subject. Any other use should be expressly authorised by the ESA Legal Department in conjunction with the ESA Communication Department." But that doesn't seem to cover this page, which only used the logo incidentally (not as a main topic). [In addition, per the ESA logo usage guidelines, if the image is smaller than 12mm, it should be the solid globe, not the striped one.] Srain 15:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that NASA specifies the terms by which the logo can be used with their permission, i.e. they license its use in those ways. The English language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States, blah, blah, blah, can also use images without a license under conditions which qualify as "fair use". (N.B. I do not make the claim that use of the logo on the ISS assembly sequence page would qualify as fair use, but if someone else made the claim I wouldn't object.) Frankly it's better to use the Shuttle logo anyway. (sdsds - talk) 16:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What to include

I propose this list, as opposed to a list of all flights to the ISS, should only include missions which bring to the station components which are semi-permanent parts of the station and which are not enclosed inside another module. So for example it would include the ESPs but not the MPLMs (not permanent) nor the MELFI FU-1 (enclosed in Destiny) and FU-2. Does that pair of criteria match a naive understanding of what "assembly" means? (sdsds - talk) 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Two notes, though: first, the future shuttle flights will probably change (one of them has to include Docking Cargo Module, at least) so maybe they should stay for now, and second, we should have some consistency with Template:ISS modules, so if Minus Eighty Degree Laboratory Freezer for ISS isn't worth including here, it shouldn't be on the template either. --Derlay 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Structural permanent elements only. ESP and Express and robot arms should be about as far as we should go. Internal cargo etc seems unneeded. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel flight STS-128 should be included even though the hardware it brings up in enclosed within a module. The flight is a major step in assembly as it enlarges the ISS to 6 person crews. It helps fill in the gaps in the dates between Shuttle flights and makes more sense to someone reading this manifest who may wonder why there appears to be large gaps of inactivity.Rukaribe (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. However, now it seems that MPLM will be attached to the station and remain there. It should be restated that STS-128 will bring internal equipment or something in MPLM --Jan.Smolik (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy on future flights

The article as it currently stands says: "However, anything after mission STS-128 might still be subject to considerable changes and should be considered an indication only." However, that flight isn't listed. Perhaps it is left off flight 3R? Canada Jack 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well that's probably because it's a logistics flight then in that case. This is really difficult to fix though. The info is so speculative atm (and the names of the specific shuttles even more so) that this article simply CANNOT be any good any time soon i think ... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The underlying trouble is that there isn't much rational basis for some of the trade-off decisions that have been (tentatively) made. For example, why are they planning to fly the Cupola and leave the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer mothballed in a clean room somewhere? Answer: they expect something will change before those decisions become final. Meanwhile, as regards the reference to STS-128, I've changed the reference to STS-124, the 1J mission, per the cited source. (sdsds - talk) 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just in response to your Cupola issue. The Cupola can be flown up attached to Node 3 as Node 3 is required for 6 person crews this wouldn't really cause the Cupola to be a trade off. Also much of the science AMS would do is going to be done with another space experiment I believe. Regardless I hope NASA gets more funds to be able to bring it up to the ISS.Rukaribe (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadarm2 and Russian Research Module

I've been comparing the ISS Configuration image featured on this page with the assembly sequence chart and noticed some discrepancies. One is that Canadarm2 is rendered in blue on the image, indicating that it's awaiting a US Shuttle launch. However, on the chart it is indicated that Canadarm2 was launched the Endeavor flight STS-100 back on April 19, 2001. Also, the Russian Research Module page states that both planned modules are canceled as of 2007. Instead they are planning to replace one of them with Docking Cargo Module. The image still has RM on it. Can anyone verify this and update the image if necessary?

Canadarm2 is actually orange in the image, but the dextre manipulator is blue, as it has not yet been launched. It's due to go up next February, as shown in the table. I'll work on updating the image to replace the RM with the DCM in the next few days. You might consider creating an account and joining Wikipedia; this is exactly the kind of help needed. In any case, please sign your posts with [4] ~ characters. Thanks! Srain 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)