Talk:List of space stations/SandboxTalk
Habitable volume[edit]
I think it would be useful to add a column to give some sense of the human-interesting pressurized volume of each of these stations. Perhaps we might call it habitable volume.
My rationale is that the current ISS—and later, the circa 2015 Bigelow complex and the circa 2020-2022 Chinese complex—are of a whole different character than the early single-module (or couple-of-docked-modules) space stations and the current table might obscure this important relative characteristic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talk • contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fair point, I'll add a column for that. Incidentally, do you think the cancelled and planned stations should be given their own headers or just as bullets? It looks kind of odd to me in the TOC, with the table meaning the launched stations don't appear as TOC entries. Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Interesting question. I see what you mean. Well, my first reaction is that the only stations worthy of their own headers might be the major, large stations currently under development and funded. So definitely not on the cancelled stations. One way to handle it might be to take away the "one paragraph each" on the cancelled stations and put them into a table just like the launched stations. Then readers could click on the article page to get details rather than have them summarized here on a list page.
- Now for some reason, maybe non-objective and emotional, I kind of like the short one-paragraph-and-a-section for the major, under development and funded stations. But I could not really argue about ALL planned stations losing their sections headers if you decide to put them into a table also. After all, this is a "List of ..." article so we probably ought not repeat two much that exists elsewhere. That's my two cents.
- I did think about putting them in a table, but didn't have the foggiest idea of which fields to include... :-S Colds7ream (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I could throw out a few ideas. But a table is not the only way to go; it would just be symmetric with the launched stations, and address you other concern. So your call if you go with a table on this list at this time. However, IF you go with a table, here are a first pass couple of thoughts from me:
- For CANCELLED stations
- Name, Active Dates (OR, start date, cancellation date), Approx. planned Mass (if known), approx. planned Habitable volume (if known). I'm not real high on the little country flags, but I'm guessing my view would be in the minority on that (I anticipate a day when mere commercial stations are in space and can host folks from anywhere, as Bigelow is trying to do, without (undue) regard to which nation state they happen to hail from -- but that is likely a discussion for a whole 'nuther day.)
- For PLANNED stations
- Name, Initial proposal date, Planned launch date, Mass, Habitable volume, maybe human capacity (2, 3, whatever) and how long a crew could stay (e.g., the initial several Chinese space station modules can explicitly (by design) only handle folks on board for 20 or 40 days; long-term habitation is off in 2020 or so.) N2e (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I could throw out a few ideas. But a table is not the only way to go; it would just be symmetric with the launched stations, and address you other concern. So your call if you go with a table on this list at this time. However, IF you go with a table, here are a first pass couple of thoughts from me:
Genesis I and Genesis II[edit]
As much as I make an effort to begin to get the NewSpace part of spaceflight well represented in Wikipedia, I must say that we probably ought to delete Genesis I and Genesis II from the "Current" table. I was off chasing down data for their volume when I realized that the 11.5 cubic metres (410 cu ft) volume, no docking port, etc. make "space stations" questionable. While they are currently in space, operating quite well last I heard six weeks ago, they really aren't space stations; rather they are expandable spacecraft technology demonstration spacecraft for technologies that are, undoubtedly, leading to the building of space stations. But that's not enough to make the cut, in my view. N2e (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Again, fair point. Maybe I could have them in a special sub-table within the 'Launched stations' section? Colds7ream (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, you could. But they aren't really "space stations", by any reasonable definition of space stations. They cannot host humans; they have no docking port; they are too small to be useful stations; they were not designed for human habitation; etc. So they probably ought not be on the list. They are merely technology demonstrators. N2e (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe your recent change to call them prototypes is an elegant solution to the problem, and it fits the facts. It certainly solves the concerns I had on this subject. N2e (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Shiny, glad you agree! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe your recent change to call them prototypes is an elegant solution to the problem, and it fits the facts. It certainly solves the concerns I had on this subject. N2e (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, you could. But they aren't really "space stations", by any reasonable definition of space stations. They cannot host humans; they have no docking port; they are too small to be useful stations; they were not designed for human habitation; etc. So they probably ought not be on the list. They are merely technology demonstrators. N2e (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)