Talk:International Space Station

message: I am posting because my edit was reverted by . My understanding is that this is a good article based on this review in 2008. Has it been delisted in the mean time? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article got promoted to FA status in 2010, and got demoted in 2011. I don't see a GA nomination page for it, so that's why I reverted your edit. Hope this helps. Thebogthefrenzythesencuy (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So if it gets demoted from FA, then it then becomes GA again, no? Would you please restore the correct rating on the article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

text: The article is clearly of GA quality as of now, there is no logical reason it would be a C-class article and not a GA-class article. WalkingWiki686 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

text: * I propose we re-evaluate it against the WP:BCLASS criteria. (sdsds - talk) 01:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: This discussion relates to recent good faith edits to improve the lede section of the article, hoping to encourage further revisions that help the article return to good article status. (sdsds - talk) 21:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Lede Section 

message: The "largest ever" assertion is correct. It warrants the newly added link to Assembly of the International Space Station. The sentence ordering could likely be improved to bring these into closer proximity. (sdsds - talk) 22:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis on size related to method of assembly

message: The listed space agencies (and their contractors) did assemble ISS, and continue to operate it. The  lede would be improved by somehow concisely indicating that. (sdsds - talk) 22:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Space agencies both assembled and operate ISS

message: The change to describing these as being "operational" rather than "functional" distinctions is correct (they have quite similar functions) and details of how the segments are operated (i.e. mention of Mission Control Centers in Houston and Moscow) would improve the article. (sdsds - talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: USOS and ROS

message: The ISS National Lab is not part of NASA, and yet it is responsible for much of the research activity in the USOS. The article could be improved by incorporating that into the lede section. (sdsds - talk) 22:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: ISS National Lab

message: Apologies to Seasider53 for the blind reverting, unintentionally occurring during overlapped edits. Thanks for your article improvements! (sdsds - talk) 22:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Blind reverting

message: There are a few estimates of the ISS mass.  NASA's current page (https://www.nasa.gov/reference/international-space-station/) says its over 400,000kg and ESA at completion says it will be about 450,000kg these are only estimates.  Still the best data we have is (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/np-2015-05-022-jsc-iss-guide-2015-update-111015-508c.pdf) which states 419,725 kilograms.  Other than the new ROSA panels at a mass of 325 kg each, does anyone have a better estimate of its mass.  The ESA page (https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/International_Space_Station/ISS_International_Space_Station) appears to be a very rough estimate and is inconsistent with NASA's numbers.
(User:Zygerth 17 March 2024.)  — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Orbital Mass - Verifiable data

message: With deorbit of the station on the horizon, a new article should be created about the deorbit vehicle NASA plans to develop, its still in the funding phase but enough information does exist currently 73.210.30.217 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deorbit Vehicle