Talk:Shuttle–Mir program/Archive 1

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

Older Entries

  • I placed this article in Category:Human spaceflight programmes since it was not in any category.Gerry Ashton 16:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between this and part of the Mir article? I suggest that these two articles be merged, or that this article is changed. Fireemblem 00:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I changed it, and intend to get it up to FA status. Colds7ream 17:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

References

  • Shouldn't point to Wikipedia articles. Please insert the original citations. - Francis Tyers · 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done

Good Article

Congratulations to all who have worked on this article. It is now GA-class. Adding more citations may improve this article slightly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themcman1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Typos

Just a quick note to say thanks for the typo corrections that people have been doing, but to point out that, according to the Manual of Style,

  • Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout.
    • Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings, which can be jarring to the reader. For example, do not use center in one place and centre in another in the same article (except in quotations or for comparison purposes).
    • If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not be too quick to make accusations!)

As such, i'd be grateful if people could please make sure to make corrections in British English, as that's what i've written the article in, me being a Brit and all. :-) On the other hand, welcome to the article, all new people! Thanks for the help! Colds7ream 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my corrections on 07:25, 28 March 2007. I wasn't aware of the above, so I'll keep it in mind next time.
Keep up the good work on the article. Tinsue 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I appreciate the help! Colds7ream 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Class

In accordance with the Wikiproject: Space Exploration assessment criteria, I have reclassed the article as an A-class article. I believe that, following extensive expansion, a peer review and various copyedits, it is of sufficient quality to attain this - and hopefully pass its current featured article candidacy. Colds7ream 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

I went to schedule this article for the main page, but frankly, I don't like any of these pictures. I want a picture of Mir like akin to this one of hte ISS. The only one in this article that's even close is Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, but unfortunately, that one also has the shuttle in it (I'd prefer one that only has Mir). Can someone look into this? (It needs to be copyleft also) Raul654 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Would Image:Mir on 12 June 1998edit1.jpg work for this purpose? (sdsds - talk) 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Raul654 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If I may ask, what is it that you don't like about Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg? I thought it was a good choice of image as it shows a fairly major part of what the Shuttle-Mir Program was, i.e. Space Shuttles visiting Mir to carry out resupply and crew exchanges. In addition, the image shows the first Shuttle-Mir docking, of Atlantis during STS-71. That docking occurred on June 29 1995, hence the date which was requested for to article to appear on the main page. Atlantis then went on to dock with Mir six more times in succession, making her the best Orbiter to show in such an image. Incidentally, thanks very much for choosing the article for the June 29th date! Colds7ream 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want the Shuttle in the picture because (to the unknowning reader) it would appear as if the Shuttle was a permanent fixture of the station. (And, to wit, how many days of the year was a shuttle berthed at the station? Not all that often.) Raul654 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair point. :-) Colds7ream 18:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a ridiculous point. Any image can be misinterpreted, that isn't an argument for choosing images with less information, or biased in some way. --Duk 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I looked briefly for a picture of the two together but undocked. Didn't find any I thought were an improvement. --Duk 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mixed up numbers.

The Phase One closes down (1998)-section has mixed up some numbers.
"907 consecutive days in space by American astronauts since the launch of Shannon Lucid on the STS-76 mission in March 1996"

Shannon Lucid was launched with STS-76 March 22nd 1996 and was on board Mir until she was relieved by John Blaha, who was relieved by Jerry Linenger, relieved by Michael Foale, relieved by David Wolf, relieved by Andrew Thomas who landed with STS-91 June 12th 1998. Summa: 812 consecutive days in space by American astronauts from lift of with Shannon Lucid to touch down with Andrew Thomas - NOT 907 days.

Norman Thagard arrived to Mir March 16th 1995 and left Mir July 4th 1995. For 8-9 months there were no Americans on board Mir. Shannon Lucid arrived to Mir March 24th 1996 and Andrew Thomas left Mir June 8th 1998. Total NASA time on board Mir is the 907 days.--Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Soyuz TM-21 Patch.gif

The image Image:Soyuz TM-21 Patch.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple red links in references

As this is a featured article, I think that the red author links should be removed from those references whose authors do not have their own Wikipedia article. The red links are distracting, and not every news reporter would necessarily be notable enough to warrant their own article here, nor would it be always possible to find sufficient information on the people to be able to put an article together. I suggest removing all the links from those authors who are not already on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just finished clearing all the redlinks. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are NASA publications & websites reliable sources?

There has been some recent discussion (notably here) as to whether NASA sources (publications and websites) are suitable references for spaceflight-related articles. This RfC asks whether or not these NASA sources are reliable sources? Colds7ream (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't so much whether a NASA publication is a reliable source that can be cited in an article, it is whether an article about a NASA topic can have "featured article" status while relying mainly on NASA sources. (sdsds - talk) 09:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, but it's something folks not involved in WP:HSF have been complaining about before, for example in recent FACs & PRs for International Space Station. Colds7ream (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Then again, It's my belief that if a source is considered reliable enough to function as a source, then it should be perfectly acceptable for featured articles too. Colds7ream (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Another element to the issue is that the Featured Article Criteria recently tightened the requirement for sources, now requiring "High Quality Sources", which changes things somewhat. It would certainly be better to broaden the sourcing, but I think that's no reason to throw out the NASA information. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:47, 10 Nohttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/366590main_Ares_I_FS.pdfvember 2009 (UTC)
That would introduce more problems because most books actually are out-of-date with regards to the figures and sometimes even blatantly get the information wrong when you compare it to the information provided by NASA/ESA/JAXA, etc. -MBK004 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, as I stated in the Shuttle-Mir FARC. Accuracy is what we need, not the use of secondary sources just to use secondary sources... Colds7ream (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of my point, too - accurate information is accurate information. For a Featured Article, I want to see a broad array of sources, and that's part of the criteria, but the more critical point is to authoritatively source specific facts to specific sources, and this articles does that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a specific example of how NASA is not always a reliable source. (This isn't related to shuttle-mir, but I hope it is nonetheless appropriate to mention.) On http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresl/index.html (today's version), NASA asserts, "During launch, the first-stage booster powers the vehicle toward low Earth orbit. In mid-flight, the reusable booster separates and the upper stage's J-2X engine ignites, putting the vehicle into a circular orbit." I'm pretty sure this misrepresents the orbit into which the Ares I vehicle will inject the Orion spacecraft. Compare this to the description at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/366590main_Ares_I_FS.pdf which correctly mentions, "The upper stage’s J-2X engine ignites and powers the Orion spacecraft to an altitude of about 425,328 feet (80 miles). Then, the upper stage separates and Orion’s service module propulsion system completes the trip to a circular orbit of 976,800 feet (185 miles) above Earth." I don't think this is the only place where a NASA website misrepresents something! (sdsds - talk) 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this case would be applicable to this RfC, for the reason that that page concerns a programme that is under development, changing all the time, and which the agency has no experience in operating. The Shuttle-Mir and ISS pages on the site, however, concern programmes that NASA has already completed or is in the process of operating, and so they can make use of historical data to ensure accuracy in these cases. Colds7ream (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points: when NASA describes its own history it tends to reliably report factual events. There really isn't any good reason to preclude citing a NASA source regarding for example which Shuttle missions docked to Mir! But what about the assertions in the section Shuttle–Mir_Program#Controversy? Is it possible WP:DUE issues arise there? (sdsds - talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more - hence why, as far as I can see, there aren't any NASA sources in that section of the article. Colds7ream (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that regardless of whether a source is considered generally reliable, for the elite Featured status one would definately like to see other independent sources, if available. In some cases there is no other source, but if I were considering an article and I knew that there were other possible sources, I would insist on using them AS WELL, not instead of. Of course, the question of which sources in this case... Who disseminates the data? If you quote the London Times, but the Times is quoting NASA, you haven't achieved anything! Best of Luck, its way beyond me!

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not consider News@NASA the best of sources, but websites about specific programs and (especially) official NASA publications are reliable when describing uncontroversial aspects of the programs or the science generated from the programs. Who better to get info about a NASA program than from the scientists and engineers who work on those programs? Of course, the content of the material is important; controversial topics need to have second and third party reliable sources thrown in. This article does that. That said, the overall diversity of sourcing still may be a concern for this article (at least as the FAR is concerned). But not a big deal, IMO. --mav (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found NASA sources to be usually reliable, but definitely not immune to error. I am sure there are webmasters that are called upon to maintain old archives of which they personally know very little. The OSO 7 page at HEASARC for a time had an incorrect image of one of the earlier OSO versions (Missions 1-6 were different than 7, and 8 was different than all the previous versions.) Some of the SP series documents on the web appear to have been re-typed in from photocopies, and have quite a few obvious typos. I think anyone who has significant personal experience with some of these earlier missions will find some errors. When I report them to the webmasters, they usually get fixed pretty quick, so that is worth doing if you have certain information. And everyone would be well-advised to be aware that mistakes happen, so cross check if you can in cases of doubt. But of course NASA is the primary (& often only) source for much of this kind of information. A secondary source based on a bad NASA source is likely to perpetuate errors unless the journalist has independent knowledge of the subject, which not all do. Wwheaton (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA Sources in Controversy section

In the "Attitudes" subsection of the "Controversy" section, this appears: "The Russians, however, would not budge, and many felt that significant work time was lost because of this.[6][44]" Examine footnote 44 for WP:UNDUE NASA influence. (sdsds - talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but, if you examine the context, the source is used to describe experience NASA had gained on Skylab 20 years earlier. Colds7ream (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Background-Origins

Surely the SS-Mir program did not ORIGINATE as part of the ISS programme? It was concieved and started while the two nations were still planning their own new stations. It formed part of the basis of the ISS programme once the two nations combined their plans to create the ISS. (only part of it- the two nations had already linked in space many years before and MIR is not a physical part of ISS) No?

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Worthwhile quote from Doug Cooke of NASA

Before work started on the ISS, for example, shuttle orbiters docked nine times with the Soviet-era Mir space station in what Cooke terms a “stroke of genius” in helping the former Cold War adversaries begin to understand each other’s “engineering cultures” well enough to build a space station together. From AW&ST: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p56-341403.xml&headline=Shuttle%27s%20Lessons%20Will%20Endure%20For%20Decades&next=20 Can someone find a good place to incorporate it into the article? (sdsds - talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Shuttle–Mir Program. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shuttle–Mir Program. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shuttle–Mir_program/Archive_1&oldid=1137185619"