Talk:Mir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mir article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Mir is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
To-do list for Mir: edit · history · watch · refresh

1) Reorganisation of page into same style as ISS article.

2) Section on assembly of station.

3) Cleanup of International Cooperation section:

  • Shuttle-Mir
  • Intercosmos
  • European partners.

4) Section on the station post-Phase One (MirCorp, etc.)

5) Create problems section, detailing failing systems, fire & collision at the end of Mir's life.

6) Expand section on life aboard the station.

7) Possible further expansion of support craft section.


  • Y Done Expansion of module sub articles & cleanup of modules section on main article.
This article contains material that originally came from a NASA website or printed source. According to their site usage guidelines, "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted".
For more information, please review NASA's use guidelines.


/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Error ? - Second expansion phase

It says in the article, that "... the modules Spektr and Priroda, were not so lucky. The newly formed Russian Federal Space Agency was unable to finance them and they were put into storage, ending Mir's second expansion." Yet if you follow the links, there are launchdates (1995-96), pictures from space, and so on for both modules.

If you read the article, you might think they where never launched.

They were later launched during the Shuttle-Mir Program when the Russian space effort was somewhat buoyed by American money in the form of NASA funding, as part of the third expansion phase.

[edit] Space Mould?

wasn't there some issue of a space mold or fungus eating the Mir?

"A microbiologist, Natalia Novikova, eventually identified the growth as an aggressive space fungus. And since then, she's had her hands full examining the various forms of fungi found growing aboard the ship. The aging Mir, it turns out, is nearly overrun with the stuff. Visitors have found numerous fungal patches with hues between green and black, feeding behind control panels, slowly digesting the ship's air conditioner, communications unit, and myriad other surfaces. Pull out an insulation panel on Mir, and you'll probably find fungus." from slashdot (October 4, 2000) and the Boston Globe...

more space mold info

Dialectric 00:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They had similar trouble on Salyut 4 - a rich green mould coated almost the entire surface on the inside. Colds7ream 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is/was this stuff ? Surely fungai cannot survive in the enviornment of space (little/no air or moisture and solar/cosmic radiation) It had to originate on earth but couldnt it have been removed by normal cleaning ? 80.229.222.48 22:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Expansion/Integration

It would be nice if the article would cover a little more thoroughly what life was like for those who lived at Mir. If this can be expanded on, it may be possible to merge this item from the otherwise irrelevant Mir in popular culture page: Two amateur radio call signs, U1MIR and U2MIR, were assigned to Mir in the late 1980s, allowing radio operators on Earth to communicate with the cosmonauts. <(ref)>Astronaut Hams Astronaut Hams<(/ref)> Mangojuicetalk 13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently added into the new life on Mir section. Still needs to be integrated. Aalox 00:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Spektr Article

I have proposed a merger of the daughter article Spektr back into the main Mir article, as that article itself is quite small at present, probably a stub, and the two-sentence section for Spektr on the Mir page could probably do with some considerable expansion. Possibly we could do some budding of module articles in the future, but until we sort out this, parent page, I can't really see the point. As always, any comments very much appreciated. Colds7ream 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly adding to Spektr article as time allows. This is my first time making any major changes to Wikipedia so I learning as I go. I feel that it could be its own article like the ISS modules, especially with the collision and in orbit modifications to the module. Also putting all this information in the main article would clutter it up in my opinion. Aalox 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aalox. Each module should have its own article. This would allow more information to be module specific instead of a couple of sentences in the Mir article. Andy120290 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - although if we do split the articles off, we mustn;t forget the main Mir article - its a mess, to be frank. Colds7ream 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have started a page for the Kristall module. I will continue to start other pages for other modules as I get time to do so. We still need pages for Mir Core Module, Kvant-1, Kvant-2, Mir Docking Module, and Priroda (currently a redirect page). Andy120290 21:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Continued in Mir Cleanup below Aalox 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As it stands now, I have completed pages for Mir Core Module, Kvant-1, Kristall, and Priroda. These pages should probably be double-checked for any grammatical errors I may have missed. The only pages left are for Kvant-2 and Mir Docking Module. Andy120290 02:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have now completed my work on all of the pages for all of Mir's modules. I still need some people to double check them for any possible grammatical or factual errors that I may have missed. After this is completed, we can start work on cleaning up the main Mir article. Andy120290 00:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mir clean up

But the messiness is a tribute to the messiness of Mir its self with all the wires and ducts running everywhere. Just kidding. The core modules section and the names section could be moved into the module articles, leaving behind just the table which could be pushed to the bottom, allowing the History and International Cooperation sections to be next to each other. I made a dummy article to see how this would look. Aalox 23:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the Mir article could use some cleanup. But just make sure to wait until all of the module articles are up. We do not want to delete a bunch of information about them too early. I also just checked your dummy article. Instead of just showing the configuration of the station, I would also show an isolated view of each component. Andy120290 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andy there; also we need to add a section on what life was aboard the station, greatly expand the 'Support Craft' section, and put some more in the history. I'll start on a 'Components of Mir' template that we can use, like the one for the ISS. Incidentally, nice to finally see some activity on these pages - maybe we'll finally get them sorted into a decent state. If anyone has the time, i'd also appreciate any comments on my Shuttle-Mir Program article, as I should be putting it up for peer review soon, so any comments before I do would be great.Colds7ream 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
How does this look: Template:Mir modules? Colds7ream 09:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, it's informative and simple :-) Ricnun 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I found a small section from NASA about life on Mir but I'm not yet sure how to adapt it into the article. It is mostly quotes. http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/history/h-b-lifeonmir.htm


I've expanded the Support Craft section and added to the section regarding deorbit of the station. Aalox 14:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created the development section. Aalox 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of Mir in popular culture Article

I've proposed a merger of the article Mir in popular culture into the main Mir article. The article itself is not about a physical object, concept or event. Any comments would be appreciated. Aalox 17:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Mir in popular culture. - Francis Tyers · 07:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I redirected that page here. The content is there in the page history if anyone cares. Mangojuicetalk 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Module List

One thing I really don't like about the article is the table of modules and the the list after it. The table interrupts the flow, it could stay but maybe at the bottom. The modules also seem tacked on. I think that they could be briefly talked about chronologically as they are launched in the history section, with a link to the module page. I would love to hear your thoughts. Aalox 23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a note to the top of the table referring people to the module pages linked in the table. If there are no objections, I will delete the module stubs on Sunday April 22 2007 Aalox 20:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture with intro paragraph

I Think it would be nice to have a photo of the completed station at the top of the article. However I haven't had much luck with photo positioning and am not quite sure the best way to achieve this. Aalox 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If we could arrange both the modules and top image - indeed, the entire article, in the same way as the ISS article, that'd present a nice continuity between the station's articles. Colds7ream 07:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I've redone the infobox in the same style as the ISS - what's the general opinion about it? Colds7ream 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oooooo, Very Nice! I like! I love the idea of continuity between the articles. I used to reference the ISS article, need to start doing so again... Aalox 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International cooperation

I've hit a bit of a writers block with this section. I want to write it as to provide a tiny bit of a summary of the Mir-Space program, but follow the style I started in the three previous sections. It might be a few days before I figure out exactly what I'm going to do here. Aalox 10:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

The death of Mir was widely viewed as the loss of one of mankind's greatest treasures caused by misguided American disdain for all things Russian.

Could we have a citation for this? I'm generally suspicious of things like "it is widely viewed that...". Also, since we're talking about this, how do I add a "citation needed" in the article itself? I'm new at this, and this the first time I've tried to add a citation needed tag. Vgranucci 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, but I also agree it isn't neutral. Aalox 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
To add a {{Fact}} template, the code is {{fact}}. Incidentally, and on a totally different topic, I've had an idea for a space-related branstar; how about the NASA astronaut symbol with a barnstar at the top? Colds7ream 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I did it. BTW, that is a cool looking barnstar.Vgranucci 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "She" as a pronoun

I know this is common practice in English, and I can't find anything referring to it in the MoS, but it seems really awkward here to me for some reason. Too personal, perhaps. I'm changing this to be neutral again (by using Mir or the ship instead) to see if it reads better. Chris Cunningham 11:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Russian ground controllers and cosmonauts certainly referred to her as a 'she', to the extent that the president of Energia even called her 'my Mir'. I think that changing all of the female pronouns to 'the ship' is quite jarring, to be honest, particularly in a sentence which starts "The station existed until 23 March 2001, at which point the ship was deliberately de-orbited," - the term is used throughout english, and I personally referred to Mir as a she in the Shuttle-Mir Program article, which got FA, so obviously no problem there. Basically, in my opinion, those changes should be changed back to 'she'. Colds7ream 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The question of gender for refering to vessels in encyclopedic writing is a tough one. I think, given the above comments, the best approach would be to find a direct quote from someone involved with Mir which uses feminine gender, and include that quote in the article (with proper source citation, of course). This gives the reader the understanding that those involved with the program refered to the station as feminine. At the same time, the article should probably avoid using any gender, including neuter, and consistently use Mir. (Incidentally, I personally prefer "the station" to "the ship", although obviously either term is acceptable.) (Sdsds - Talk) 03:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems this has been discussed before: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). Colds7ream 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Russians, however, follow their own practice of using the male gender to describe ships, hence the controllers would refer to Mir as 'he'. User:Simonpro 20:13, 27 June 2007 (CEST)
I don't know if that has any implications in English, but in Russian, the word "мир" is masculine. — Kpalion(talk) 08:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So basically, then, the first thing we need to decide is if we personify the station or not - the gender can be decided once that's done. I vote yes, personify it. Colds7ream 10:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with "international cooperation" section needed

I attempted to clean up the international cooperation section a bit, but I was unable to get the picture positioned in a way that didn't interfere with the paragraphs, so somebody who knows what they're doing needs to work that out. Also, it would probably be a good idea if someone could proof my edits and fix any stupid mistakes I made but haven't noticed. Thanks.

Vsst 02:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The section looks better! (It still needs a citation for the claims regarding the causes of the "many problems" with the Shuttle-Mir program.) The image layout looks OK to me, by the way. (Sdsds - Talk) 03:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have been unable to find any website that supports the statement that "Distrust, lack of coordination, language problems, different views of each others' responsibilities and divergent interests" caused many problems between the astronauts and cosmonauts aboard Mir. Also, the sites I have checked say that Mir helped international cooperation progress, and that the station was, for the most part, a success. Perhaps we should delete the sentence altogether? Vsst 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I little digging found: http://www.jamesoberg.com/05181998mirmisinfo_mir.html which was written by a reliable journalist. It's worth reading. (Sdsds - Talk) 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
On a similar vein, the book I used to research a lot for the Shuttle-Mir Program article, Dragonfly, had a lot of details about that sort of thing. I've also sent off for a new book on the station, and i'll get started reading through that when it arrives. Colds7ream 08:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The article posted by Sdsds is indeed woth reading. I have added a link to it in the external links section. Vsst 17:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead like me

In the MGM television series "dead like me", a girl in Seattle is supposedly killed by a toilet seat coming from mir. This is fiction, and not potraid as a fact. However, the following quote comes from the first episode:

"evidentally, there was a miscalculation in the (...)-sphere (...), or something like that, the whole thing was supposed to fall in the pacific ocean, but a few pieces made it to the west coast, including the seat of (...) toilet.".

For anyone who knows a little bit about the deorbit, perhaps a sentence about the rights and wrongs of the above quote would make sense to put into the page? Many other pages on wikipedia has a section about "popular culture", perhaps mir could have one too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.157.245.38 (talk) 18:54, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taco Bell

The information is true, and I added the correct citation to Taco Bell, but it doesn't belong in Mir. There's no reason to believe that this stunt was especially significant or notorious, and including the information does not lead to any greater understanding of the history of Mir. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Eleland 19:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the question is, "What makes this incident worthy of inclusion?" The article should make that explicit! The reason to include it is because people really did fear (and do fear) things falling on them from space. Taco Bell played off that fear in their promotion. The reason it belongs in the Mir article is because Mir was the biggest thing to ever de-orbit. That should be made explicit too! So to improve the article, an editor who cares to do so should find a citable source for the claim about Mir being the largest de-orbited object, and then assert people had concerns about this, and then cite the Taco Bell stunt as evidence of this concern. (sdsds - talk) 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It

is my impression that during the 1980's {possibly 1970's, as well} I had had some political buttons which had read as "Myr", or "MYR", not "Mir", white on a red "background", shrinkwrapped plastic or claypaper, on a metal pin.

I've checked in|on font color, HTML_element, help:HTML_in_wikitext, wikipedia : how_to_edit_a_page, italic type, in order to alter a link color; neither says.

Above, someone had used "myriad".

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon? Colds7ream (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

In the article, it says that the Mir re-entered on March 23, 2001, but the box on the right says March 21, 2001. So, which is it?

[edit] Science on Mir

The article is sorely lacking on information on science conducted on Mir but I've had little luck finding anything of substance. I do know that prior to the various emergencies the science modules were being manned but I have no idea as to the research that was completed there. Does anybody have any information at all on the nature of the research on mir that might assist in getting more detailed sources for a new section in the article?Zebulin (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupied for 4592 days?

That's over 12 years. "... longest continuous human presence in space at 8 days short of 10 years." This statistic needs to be checked. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've probably got this wrong, as 10 years - 8 days was continuous. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)