Talk:Russian Orbital Segment

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.

Zarya

This module is not part of the ROS. It is owned and operated by NASA. This is in the source cited for the paragraph in the article. Soo... WTF? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's NASA for you, trying to take credit for everything. Sure they hype themselves, but hey, who "paid for" the design and development of Zarya ? NASA is famous for saying they just don't have enough money for pretty much anything they are asked to do, and it's a far stretch to say they 'paid for' the TKS based design of Zarya, or anything else about it's design. Operated is really really easy to solve, you can find the NASA memorandum of understanding which states Zarya is operated by the Russian Federation. Probably says that Russia retains ownership of it's modules as well. Anyhow, like me, you have to take everything NASA says as being, well, technically, possibly, maybe correct.

I think you can say they paid for it, or bought it off the Russians in the beginning. They also had to barter back the Launch of Zarya by the Russians by taking a Russian module, Rassvet up to the ROS in a NASA shuttle.

Maybe we should leave Zarya out of the ROS in some ways, but you'll find many many refs that leave it in, so understanding why it is now 'in' would be key. Like if something further down the line happened. For example, did they have to trade ownership for flights to the station, on one of the occasions they became completely reliant on the Soyuz ?Penyulap_talk 04:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a think and a read, I'd say that the US was supposed to provide a FGB, but couldn't afford the research and development cost, and so they paid for the construction cost for the Russians to complete the outfitting of the left-over MIR module as a FGB, using their own Russian designs and systems, borrowed a launch from the Russians, and then rapidly traded back all rights to Zarya for other stuff they needed, although I'm not sure that they have ever had any rights to Zarya, so it's worth studying that one closely. Penyulap_talk 04:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zarya is a US-owned module. See http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/rs/zarya.html, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/fgb.html#.U22LU_ldV8E, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12984241 though I would assume the ownership is only titular since Zarya is operated by Roscosmos.Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Where does the definition of the ROS come from. It definitely is not in the source cited for that section. It seems to me that this entire article is dependant on that definition. These two things together strike me as very trubling. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 10:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One source can be the "ISS future" PDF linked on the OPSEK Presentation page. But in general, I think its name came from the language by default and was just codified by Roskosmos using it.195.212.29.189 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:MLM Mockup.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MLM Mockup.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Russian Orbital Segment

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian Orbital Segment's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AWST20201026":

From Nauka (ISS module): Klotz, Irene (26 October 2020). "ISS turns 20" (PDF). Aviation Week and Space Technology (AWST). pp. 48–54. Retrieved 30 October 2020.
From Science Power Platform: "ISS turns 20" (PDF). Aviation Week and Space Technology (AWST). 26 October 2020. Retrieved 30 October 2020.

Reference named "rsw20210209":

From Nauka (ISS module): Zak, Anatoly (9 February 2021). "ISS set for the Russian expansion". RussianSpaceWeb.com. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
From Soyuz MS-19: Zak, Anatoly (9 February 2021). "ISS set for the Russian expansion". RussianSpaceWeb.com. Retrieved 9 February 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Former Modules?

Since Pirs was deobited this year, should there not be a new section in the article referencing former modules to the Russian Orbital Segment? AmigaClone (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]