Talk: International Space Station

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Space Station article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Office[]

Or was it office? w/e. Didn't Sisco have a model of the I.S.S. in his office? That and some starships... And on the little model, the ship was named "enterprise". -AJHalliwell 03:30, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Sisko had a model of a Daedalus class USS Horizon and Miranda-class starship (presumably USS Saratoga) in his office, as well as his baseball and presumably the ISS. But I've heard nothing about any ships named Enterprise. --Gvsualan 03:59, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm trying to remember where I heard/read it (cause I'm not entirly sure I'm remembering this part accuratly) But for the Star Trek model, the little escape vehicle on the ISS model was given some registry with the name "Enterprise". -AJHalliwell 04:09, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC) (EDIT:) Found it, [1] -AJHalliwell 04:12, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it's the space shuttle Enterprise, which apparently made it into space -- in an alternate timeline ;)--Gvsualan 04:47, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It actually was not the I.S.S. that the model was of but Space Station Freedom, you can tell as the non-US modules are side by side at the rear of the station, propulsion modules and there is no Russian segment. The timeline is very close though, as the I.S.S.Alpha would be announced later that year. Olivenexdor (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

11:59[]

There may be a possible reference in VOY: "11:59" to the ISS, unless there were more than one space stations in 2000: It was stated that McMillan was going to be the co-pilot on a joint mission with the Europeans scheduled for 2003 where she was going to spend 4 months on the space station. --Alan del Beccio 22:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WORF[]

The station includes a viewing window filled with state-of-the-art sensor equipment, used in educational outreach, called the Window Observational Research Facility - in an interview with Star Trek: Communicator, its designers admitted that the name spelled out by the first letter of each word is not a coincidence.

If it's true, it definitely belongs in the article, but until I can confirm it it would be better here.--Ten-pint 17:36, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Added the WORF reference. Olivenexdor (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

ISS Enterprise[]

On ISS Enterprise there's nothing about what does that ISS means. So I typed ISS and I expected at least some disambiguation or 'this article is about, if you mean blahblahblah'. Well, I guess I'll go keep searching, maybe Terran empire will ahve somehing about it. Just leaving this complaint/suggestion here...

Imperial Starship. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:40, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

ISS[]

Where was the abbreviation used in canon? - Archduk 3 22:37, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it was. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:42, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Then we don't use it. - Archduk 3 22:48, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I think in a grammatical sense, it doesn't harm the article to use it after the first mention of the term "International Space Station." Just because it isn't mentioned as that in canon shouldn't preclue it's use here. After all, one of MA's guidelines is to use common sense when writing an article. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 22:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

In this article it's not much of a problem, but we shouldn't have disambiguations or redirects for abbreviations that aren't used in canon, since at that point we're talking about hundreds of redirects and disambiguations. - Archduk 3 23:18, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I added the disambig (on ISS) because I believed it was a popular abbreviation that many people might use when searching for information on the ISS station - I know I might. I didn't think disambigs (as long as they were sensible ones) needed to be mentioned in canon since the purpose of them is to ease navigation in the encyclopaedia - which this one does. In response to your argument on having "hundreds" of them, I'm not saying we add an abbreviation disambig for everything, just the popular ones that would assist in navigation of the site, since this is a "real world" site navigation issue, not an in-universe canon issue. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 00:43, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently neutral on this specific issue, but for every such redirect we add, it becomes harder to say no to the next one. And who determines what is "popular" for a redirect?--31dot 02:20, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a redirect, it's a disambig - a very very very small feature in the vast realm of Memory Alpha's articles. I don't think it's even worth arguing about. For such a small addition, I think it would be user descretion and common sense about adding "popular" disambigs. It's not like we're talking about a radical change to the way this site works, it's just one small thing... --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 12:56, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Configuration / Split[]

Does anyone know what the exact configurations are of both the physical model used on DS9 and the CGI model used in the ENT title sequence? - Bell'Orso 12:06, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

The physical model used is of an earlier and different station called Space Station Freedom. Two U.S. modules were at the front and Columbus and Kibo were at the rear, and there are four propulsion modules. There was no Russian involvement at the time. Around 75% of Space Station Freedom was integrated in to what became the International Space Station. The ENT title sequence has the I.S.S. in quite an early intended configuration. The biggest difference being that the Russian Science and Power segment (at the top with the horizontal solar arrays) and the Russian Research modules (at the bottom, obscured) are depicted here (in low detail as they were yet to be finalized) but have since been cancelled due to costs. Olivenexdor (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A complaint was made after I went in and edited to correct the ISS references (it is a model of Space Station Freedom) for the model in Sisko's room. I have since rolled back my edits and made any reference to SSF minimal. Olivenexdor (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Question: what is the Split that is suggested?

I see reference to a split but no real split suggested, certainly not one that would require a whole separate page. Very simply the period of time in which DS9 was filmed was also the year of great changes to the manned space station program in the United States. The model in Sisko's office merely reflects what was available at the time, and it is the Space Station Freedom, something that was never built. By the time of ENT, the production and assembly of the International Space Station was in full swing and the titles reflected the then intended configuration of the I.S.S. at the time. In real life, this evolved again as elements were changed or cancelled altogether as time went on. Olivenexdor (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats these as separate entities. As I understand it, the SSF is the original design and intent, and the ISS is the ultimate end result. Your edits this morning made it appear that you were looking for separate articles for each of them (please also note that we do NOT link out to WP in the in-universe sections of MA articles. As such, the logical assumption is either that we split the article into two (ISS and SSF) or we make the SSF a sub-section of the ISS article.

In any case, a strategy has to be arrived at rather than making a mess of the article by intermixing things randomly and poorly. -- Sulfur (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, given the page is based solely on a picture and a model and no other real Trek context, the assumed thought was that Space Station Freedom is the split. However, typically we write articles about objects/people/concepts as they appeared in their final form, so if the ISS is really just a mostly upgraded/overhauled/reincorporated/engineer's-recycling-term-of-choice of the SSF, then it could simply be a subsection of the current page with an incoming link directing it to that part of the page. --Gvsualan (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The model might have been of the original design of SSF, but I believe production sources have called it the ISS, which the SSF evolved to, so I don't see the need for a split. JagoAndLitefoot (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Understand the frustration at my edits this morning, I was hoping to correct an error. But I should also point out that that was my only intention, I was not looking nor pushing for a split. I was just trying to add factual information regarding the model itself. Just to add, I am not infavor of a split either. Olivenexdor (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)