Talk:Space station

message: I would say "no", but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
Genesis 1 was a simple balloon in orbit, with no life support systems.  It was pressurized with nitrogen -- no oxygen -- and lacked a range of essentials from radiation detectors to attitude control.  It was a proof of concept, and it could never have supported human life.  Calling Genesis 1 a space station, even a "prototype", seems pretty dubious.
Genesis 2 was a somewhat more advanced balloon in orbit.  It enclosed a breathable atmosphere and had an ant farm and some cockroaches inside.  It had basic life support, so a human on board could have survived for a few days (with difficulty; air pressure was low and temperatures fluctuated) before dying of thirst.  But it was never intended to support human life.  You could make the "prototype" argument more strongly here, but I think it still fails.
Also, the bar graph extends their bars to the present.  This seems dubious indeed.  Bigelow Aerospace is notoriously close-mouthed, but AFAWCT Genesis 2 has not been habitable for years now -- its limited life support system failed long ago.  Now it's just a slowly deflating balloon, alternately freezing and cooking, with some desiccated dead insects aboard.  
It would seem more accurate to eliminate Genesis 1 from the graph, and then either eliminate Genesis 2 or have it fade out after a year or two.
Doug M.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.254.108.207 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do the Genesis orbiters belong here, even as "prototype" stations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Space station. 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://www.webcitation.org/5il9QixAg?url=http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf to http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710092025/http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/orbital-complex-construction.php to http://bigelowaerospace.com/orbital-complex-construction.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118213739/http://www.spacestationinfo.com/space-stations.php to http://www.spacestationinfo.com/space-stations.php
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) 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Surely a section dealing with the concept of space stations in science (and other sorts of) fiction would be appropriate here, perhaps as the final section of the article?  The way real world aerospace engineers think of space stations is definitely influenced by fictional examples like the Death Stars, Deep Space 9, Space Station V, etc.  Trilobright (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space stations in fiction  

message: Please stop editing this article to indicate that Tiangong-2 is no longer in Earth orbit; it was Tiangong-1 that reentered and burned up earlier this year. You can learn more about these two stations by reading their articles, or any recent news article about Tiangong-2 (this one, for example). Thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated removal of Tiangong-2 from active space stations 

message: I've added in a clickable diagram comparing the different space station sizes (). The non-interactive version of the diagram was removed in January with the summary "adjusted as not entirely accurate" (diff). If anyone spots any problems with it, please let me know and I'll try to update it.  T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather the reason this was being deleted was in anticipation of Tiangong-2 being deorbited. Now that it is confirmed deorbited, I've updated both the  and the interactive template. Since Tiangong-1 and -2 had the same layout, I've removed Tiangong-1 from the top section and changed the bottom section to indicate it refers to both Tiangongs. If it needs updating in future but I'm not free, you can always ask the Commons graphics lab to help update it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

text: I've also updated the  template. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space station size comparison diagram 

message: Why is the Chinese Space Station the only one show without visiting Spacecraft? 197.234.165.147 (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size comparison diagram