Talk:Space Station Freedom

message: In the section which addresses conversion to ISS. There seems to be an error.  The station was not scaled back to only carry 3 people instead of seven.  3 people is just the maximum capacity it can house with the ammount that has been built.  The total capacity of ISS should be more than 7. --HFarmer 19:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ISS

message: If I'm reading this right, this would be a vessel of type "space station", named Freedom.  So shouldn't Freedom be italicized throughout?--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't this be rendered as "Space Station ''Freedom''" ?

message: Habitable/Pressurised Volume inconsistency: 
This article states the Space Station Freedom's habitable volume as 878 cubic metres. This is slightly more than the pressurised volume of the entire International Space Station, which is stated in the Wikipedia article on the ISS as being 837 cubic metres.  (Freedom is one of four national space stations, that comprise the International Space Station, the other three being Russian, European and Japanese.) This is obviously an error. - Elizabeth Jane  --112.213.138.163 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The current US component of the ISS is not the originally planned Freedom.  Note that the lede refers to eventual contribution to ISS as "the remnants of the project."--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Habitable or Pressurised Volume of National Sections versus the whole of the ISS

message: *http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/IB93017.pdf
*"The goal of a permanently occupied space station with crews rotating on a regular basis was high on NASA’s list for the post-Apollo years. In 1969, Vice PresidentAgnew’s Space Task Group recommended a permanent space station and a reusable space transportation system (the space shuttle) to service it as the core of NASA’s program in the 1970s and 1980s. Budget constraints forced NASA to choose to build the space shuttle first. When NASA declared the shuttle “operational” in 1982, it was ready to initiate the space station program. In his January 25, 1984 State of the Union address, President Reagan directed NASA to develop a permanently occupied space stationwithin a decade and to invite other countries to participate in the project. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo landing on the Moon, President George H. W. Bush gave a major space policy address in which he voiced his support for the space station as the cornerstone of a long-range civilian space program eventually leading to bases on the Moon and Mars.President Clinton was strongly supportive of the space station program, and dramatically changed its character in 1993 by adding Russia as a partner to this already international endeavor. Adding Russiamade the space station part of the U.S. foreign policy agenda to encourage Russia to abide by agreements to stop the proliferation of ballistic missile technology, and to support Russia economically and politically. President GeorgeW. Bushmade statements that were generally supportive of the space station program following the February 1, 2003 space shuttle Columbia accident. On June 1, 2003, he and Russian President Putin issued a joint statement renewing the commitment of the two countries to work together to ensure the success of the space station program. - CRS Issue Brief for Congress: Space Stations (Oct 6th, 2003)
*Space Station Freedom: A foothold on the future (1989)
--Craigboy (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info 

message: The last section says: "To accommodate reduced budgets, the station design was scaled back from 508 to 353 square feet (47 to 33 m²)(...)." Does anyone have an idea where these numbers could be sourced from, and what they mean? They seem very wrong and it's not clear if they refer to the whole station or the US-operated part. I think we should compare interior volume instead, or delete this entirely (which is what I'm planning to do). Lexif (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion to the ISS: Area comparison? 

message: Greetings, I am curious why there is no mention of the orbital plane change of Freedom to ISS, this change caused the inability to do meaningful launches to the moon or mars. As far as I can tell the move was done during the combination of the two programs to build the ISS and Soyuz was incapable of launching for equatorial plane. This would have made the cost of Freedom to be on our facilities alone. This effect was that we killed further exploration of space by humans, thus the rover programs were cheaper than building independent rockets for launching to moon and beyond.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.71.235 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbital Change 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space Station Freedom. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611042229/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaeedom.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spaeedom.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a section titled Freedom (1988) to Alpha (1993) but it doesn't mentioned the name Alpha at all. --98.200.68.218 (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been addressed with updated information, links, and references. 'Alpha' was used in two different context (three if you count the Russians) between 1993 and early 1995. Mingebinge2 (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedom (1988) to Alpha (1993)