Present vs. future tense[edit]

Does it make sense to use present tense in the lead? At the moment, the modules are part of the ISS, so one could argue that OPSEK does not yet exist. I think the sentence "It is part of a deep-space network of space stations" is especially problematic. Nanobear (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. Jeffsapko (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noticed this too, most of it has been fixed.--Craigboy (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree four. It was crap before I had a go at it, it was crap after I had a go at it, it's still crap after someone took a mop and bucket to it. "The first ISS module that is planned to become part of OPSEK was launched in 2010." is argh !!!!! fingernails scratched on a blackboard.
We have to point out that some components ARE in orbit now. ok, there is Rassvet, plus the science airlock for Nauka, as well as an ORU or two and that white square thingy ? It can be argued that it doesn't exist, yes, and 'argue' is the word too, because on one hand it has not been separated, and on the other hand parts are in orbit.
Brings things to the point of when does OPSEK 'exist' ? I was picturing the day it is separated and wondering will there be crew in both the ISS and OPSEK as well ? Hmm, interesting question !! OPSEK for sure I'd say, but who knows ? exciting ! Handshakes and cheers before closing the hatch if there are crew in both. Either way, the separation is probably the date of 'existence' but that is a crap word to use.
I propose explaining things this way, OPSEK as we know is a factory to be used for spaceship construction. This is not actually a new idea. The Russians offered to allow MIR to be used as a factory for the ISS, but the americans turned them down on that. Now the ISS is used as the OPSEK construction site or factory in plain language, it's approachable language, it's just unusual to call it by it's correct term, which is like of course it is unusual, it's the first real one that people know of, doesn't mean it's incorrect, as the ISS is clearly the assembly site for OPSEK and OPSEK in turn is clearly the assembly site for other craft and when you think of all the readers who grow up watching startrek and starwars, the idea of an orbiting space factory is very unambiguous and clear. There are shots of the enterprise and sisterships being assembled in orbit in the last new star trek movie, and then there is the death star, the second one orbiting the moon of endor? Do you call an assembly site a factory ? I don't know, I figure look to what the official Russian space agency is calling the assembly sites for stations and ships. I think it's passable if the Russians are calling it that themselves, it's their 'bat and ball' after all. It's the opsek article, so how do they refer to the use of opsek in relation to it's use as a worksite ?
I'd figure saying it is under construction in orbit, rather than it does or does not exist. Does that make more sense than the whole "The first ISS module that is planned to become part of OPSEK was launched in 2010." sort of what tense do we use thing ?
This sentence has so got to die "It would be the 12th Russian space station launched." that makes it sound like a rocket. It's crap, there isn't some big rocket blast off from the nadir side of the ROS with rocket exhaust gas destroying all the solar panels of the station (in readers minds anyhow)..... (well in this readers mind anyhow)... (well, you guys just imagined it too actually). The point is, it is NOT a launch on it's separation day. Changing orbit is NOT a launch, or every ISS reboost would be a launch too. Lets try something different, see how readers feel about this sort of thing "It would be the 12th Russian space station commissioned" or something like that.
Dump the idea that it is 'launched' as a station, from any selection of sites on the ground, as this would clearly and completely ignore the ISS altogether, ignore the whole factory/assembly/purpose of opsek altogether. We can't call craft that are assembled at OPSEK 'launched' from a terrestrial port. They have to be 'commissioned (separated)' from OPSEK. Probably good to go with 'commissioned (separated)' rather than just 'commissioned'.
I've also mentioned dumping the use of infoboxes which are designed for rockets from being used for space stations. I brought it up on the spaceflight project page. Lets all get over it people, it's the future, a space station is not a rocket ! Let us pretend no more. Lets embrace precise clear language and thinking. Penyulap ☏ 05:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with recent additions[edit]

Recently big chunks of material were added (copied from other articles?)[1]. I'm not sure all of that material should be duplicated here.

Indeed, I just trimmed off the entire 'Safety' section since it had absolutely no mentions to OPSEK and was just background info for any spaceflight in LEO. It even talked about the Westford dipoles as if they were a threat, when those are located 3,000 km away. Let's not fluff up an article for the sake of adding words. NeilFraser (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with this. Thom2002 (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding images is nice, but the images are depicting the current Russian Orbital Segment or its structure after adding the last scheduled module (FGB-2). None of the images is depicting the OPSEK configuration.

That leads to the second problem. [2] shows that none of the currently in orbit modules are confirmed as parts of the future OPSEK. The not yet launched FGB-2 is the first "confirmed" module. Zvezda and MRM-2 are mentioned as potential parts (if they can be re-certified for longer use than their design life, etc.) Zarya and MRM-1 aren't even mentioned. This is understandable - Zarya is the oldest module and is also owned by NASA - and MRM-1 is currently docked at Zarya.

The current version of the article states "Rassvet (MRM-1) - to form part of OPSEK" and then gives no explanation (or source) about how it will be moved from Zarya and where it will be docked at OPSEK. There is one sentence "Rassvet was launched with the Russian Nauka Laboratory's Experiments airlock temporarily attached to it, and spare parts for the European Robotic Arm, both will be part of OPSEK." witch seems to confuse MLM/FGB-2 airlock and ERA (which where launched together with MRM-1, but will be attached to FGB-2 when it finally launches) being part of OPSEK with MRM-1 itself being part of OPSEK.

So, at minimum the following corrections should be made:


It would be cool if we can get some pics of the future OPSEK. Lots more of them. Depicting it's stages of assembly whilst attached to the ISS.
To find a good reference for the components is a bit tricky. this pdf gives an overview of the Russian space program including opsek construction timeline. What you're looking at is the visual part of a speech and visual presentation by a top Russian official. You need to find (I can't find it at the moment, haven't looked for a while, I'll try looking again after writing this), we need to find the transcript of the speech that they have made at their meetings. That is one way. (come to think of it, I think I'll go searching the other way, you guys can google the guy talking in that pdf, I'll do the other tangent leads)
Now looking at that pdf the only curiosity you'll find as an offense to logic would be the start of the timeline for the FGB SM Zarya. It starts at what looks like a strange date, but I suspect may be the eureka moment to track down the other elusive reference, which is ownership of Zarya. In original docs Zarya is not classified as part of the ROS by the Russians, but in contemporary docs it is. The crossover moment may be where ownership was traded for flights to the station. Maybe. So maybe that is another clue to the transfer of ownership.
What we need here is more Russian speaking editors !!! we have so got to improve our welcome to editors who are better than we are at searching through foreign websites because they can do it in one of their native languages. I am so glad we've got that new Indian editor, we need MORE. More Russians, more Chinese. More More More I tell you. (sorry, raving) but it's true.
So the split that is indicated by the pdf falls across the logical split of the ROS at the time into two fully-functioning stations. The split indicated in the presentation gives each station a FGB with propulsion, guidance&navigation, plus all the new science labs going with the new station.
Their choice of Rassvet is one I'd sort of have a reservation about, it is the youngest small module presently, but it's no good for EVA and it was taken into orbit by the NASA shuttle as NASA 'owed' Russia a launch from Zarya. But it does give NASA the opportunity to boast that they helped build OPSEK, and you can bet they will keep with the long and drawn out tradition of hyping their contributions and ignoring all else (stop me anytime here Craigboy) naa, ok I'll stop.
Zvezda will NOT be part of OPSEK. No way. Get that out of there. Poisk is unlikely and is the next to go, probably best to keep it out if there is no ref. Penyulap ☏ 06:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First bullet (MRM-1) done. Jeffsapko (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a problem with this text: "The proposal would use OPSEK to assemble components of manned interplanetary spacecraft destined for Mars, the Moon, and possibly Saturn." First of, the mission to the Moon is not interplanetary; and second, how did Saturn get in the article? Is there really a plan to send a manned mission to outer planets, and not even to Jupiter (which is closer), but to Saturn? I think this should be removed, unless someone shows a valid source. SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reboosting the orbit[edit]

"Reboosting the orbit of the ISS, which descends 25 km per year due to friction with the thin atmosphere at 400 km, is done by the Russian orbital segment (ROS) or a Russian or European ship docked to that section, and formerly was also done by the U.S. Space Shuttle."

Is this actually possible, did the NASA shuttle use thrusters (nadir facing according to it's own direction of travel) to boost the station, by reorienting the station back to front and then firing it's engines ? it seems unlikely. Penyulap ☏ 15:23, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it wasn't done that way. The Shuttle's reaction control jets were used to translate down (meaning 'forwards' with a 90-degree nose-up attitude) while still attached to the station, effectively 'pulling' rather than 'pushing'. It was a slow process, and I expect it used a lot of propellant, but could be made to work practically. I'm not sure how they coped with either asymmetric thrust or possibly over-straining the docking system, but the relatively-weak RCS would put a lot less strain on it than using the OMS.86.164.64.177 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updates needed[edit]

This article is in major need of an update; there are events discussed as "to happen in 2012" -- did they happen or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.241 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice to ISS partners[edit]

The statement that "Roscosmos officially informed its ISS partner, the United States" is incorrect. There are 5 ISS partners, either the Russians advised the other 4, or [unlikely] it only advised the USA, in which case the sentence should read "Roscosmos officially informed the United States, one of its ISS partners".Royalcourtier (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Orbital Piloted Assembly and Experiment Complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories