Template talk:ISS modules

message: With the recent addition of the MELFI, I wonder if it makes sense to restrict the entries included in this template to only structural components of the station, rather than including payload components? Sdsds 22:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's similar discussion at Talk:ISS assembly sequence, and so far there seems to be consensus for restricting to only external elements. This template should have the same criteria for permanent station components, so MELFI should go. --Derlay 22:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a link to the ISPR article, or to a newly created Payload components of the ISS page, could added to the "See also" line of this template.... That would then provide a link to the MELFI, the Fluid Science Laboratory, the other facilities listed at Columbus_%28ISS_module%29#Research_activities_and_payloads, etc. (sdsds - talk) 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has objected, I removed -80° Laboratory freezer. A separate article for payload components sounds like a good idea. --Derlay 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural components 

message: Seems misleading to see HTV, Dragon and Orion next to currently operating vehicles in Support Vehicles line. I suppose to split it similar way to the ISS components listing (in orbit modules are separated from expected for launch). May be Operating Support Vehicles and Expected Support Vehicles?
Svmich (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to reformat the template -- the STS is no longer supporting the ISS. Battle cruiser (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Vehicles 

message: Some listings in the "Scheduled for Shuttle" need to change now that STS-123 is in orbit. In particular, we need to show that one part of the JEM and all of SPDM are in orbit. Is there a sensible way to do this? (sdsds - talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Let me know what you think. Rillian (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JEM PS and SPDM post STS-123 launch 

message: Are the Habitation Extension Modules really worthy of inclusion on this template? They appear simply to be a concept study with no current funding, no path to get funding, and with no apparent demand from the ISS alliance members. Rillian (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, no. As much as I'd like them to become a reality. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habitation Extension Module (HEM)

message: The assertion that ELC5 will ever fly seems dubious. Is there any current source that supports this assertion? The current flight manifest does not! (sdsds - talk) 04:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year the current manifest of the time did not include AMS - schedules can change. Since ELC5 is built and there is room for it on the ISS, I suggest we leave it as To Be Scheduled until we get closer to the final flights and it is clear it won't be flown. Rillian (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fine if the the section were titled "Not Currently Scheduled". The title "To Be Scheduled" implies the intent to schedule the modules listed in that section for flight. (sdsds - talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's now no room for ELC5 on the ITS - there are six mounting locations, taken up by ESP3, AMS & ELCs 1-4. Colds7ream (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So the addition of AMS has displaced ELC-5? Wasn't AMS in the original plans before the loss of Columbia changed the assembly plans? How were all seven going to fit? Rillian (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original plan was for there to be four ELCs on station, one of which would be periodically swapped out with the fifth in a manner similar to the operation of the MPLMs - with the reduction in the manifest, though, it was decided just to leave them permanently on-station. Colds7ream (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELC5 

message: I added Donatello to the "not currently scheduled" list, but it was removed because "MPLMs are listed in launched periodically". But in the MPLM article in the list for past/future flights only Rafaelo and Leonardo are scheduled (even for the PLM), and Donatello is not - why not add it to the "not currently scheduled" list?Alinor (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Donatello - not scheduled 

message: Has flown only one and is not scheduled to be reflown. Hektor (talk) 07:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry Hektor, after STS-135 the whole section "launched periodically" goes anyway. 82.207.116.98 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't go away completely. The MPLMs and ELM-ES are still relevant to the template as "Formerly launched periodically" modules (I'm sure there's a much better name. Rillian (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure it makes sense. It would turn the template of a living Space Station into a graveyard of Shuttle memorabilia: it's bad enough that "support vehicles" will be split into 3 subcategories: past, current, future; "formerly launched periodically" in addition to "not currently scheduled" and "canceled" is a bit too much. At most, just bundle MPLM, ELM-ES with "not currently scheduled" into "flight-ready hardware with no current launch vehicle" or something. 82.207.116.98 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Done. Reshuffled a bit to indicate that Node 4 is still an idea (and unfunded at that), while MPLM's, ELC5, ICM and ELM-ES actually are ready to go up -- there's just nothing to take them up there for the moment. Battle cruiser (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ELM-ES

message: Node Module
Penyulap talk 03:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition  

message: make a new section for Pirs module named former in this template Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  new section in the template