Jump to content

Talk:Tiangong space station/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

lede

I've only heard it refereed to as the "Large Orbital Station". Lead should probably mention that the space station hasn't been named.--Craigboy (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

True, the lead is terrible, it needs a summary, please be my guest :) I am very lazy Penyulap talk 08:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
The name is also very confusing, I'm considering moving it.--Craigboy (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool ! have a look at Wikipedia:Article titles and go for it ! Penyulap talk 14:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
How about we call it the "Chinese Large Orbital Station"?--Craigboy (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Shrug. I can only reckon it's not as common ? I don't mind what you do, I won't oppose anything, I just think to ask is that a common enough description do you think. I know your disambiguating sort of thing with the description, to exclude T1, so for the time being that's a great idea. Later when we are closer in time to T3 going up, then CSS would be better for a description, but be replaced as a redirect only because we will know the name. I have heard the large orbital station, yes of course, and prefixing it sure, it better be redirected already, wait, ok if you need to change the redirects I made in future click here for a dozen, but there are older ones I don't know where. So yes, I quite agree with what I think is your reasoning.
That sneaky vandal you caught on the ISS page, I tracked him down, and some other ones too, and found how PALZ and the TLEs are a good idea for a few things. The number of orbits is popular amongst editors for space stations on the whole, apparently not so much for satellites, I think the author of the template never intended for it to be used that way, but the stations have it and use it. Now in Salyut 5 where there is a hole in our refs, and in astronautica and so on, the number of orbits is used as a toy for vandals. On Vanguard 1 it's definitely a vandal fetish, but nobody else can see it I think. Other people see it as normal. Makes me think it's a good reason to split apart the templates, so that space stations, or specifically, those which are orbital in the present, have number of orbits updating as well as other popular to enthusiast readers stats like altitude and so forth updating regularly. I figure PALZ could put the tle's into the template so that we could at least have a fast reference to see what the data should be for a given article, or use it if we wish, and I figure maybe it's good if he does vandalism patrol, still, that's a lot of programming and it's a waste of time if nobody wants it here. His primary task is where I want Z and I to spend our resources. After all I think it is completely pointless trying to patrol an article's template for vandalism when a wikiproject editor has had it deleted, as is the case here. I mean I can so totally not see the point to lift a finger to help. BAH!
Anyhow I think there might be 6 or 5 days left on the BRFA for palz, after that I shall withdraw it, and he'll be used as an assisted editing tool until his full program is ready for other wikis. Nobody has commented yet I think. I should go check. Penyulap ☏ 12:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article exhibits a very strong pro-Chinese bias. It includes several peacock quotes, such as "The CSS will inspire people everywhere", it also lists various irrelevant Chinese achievements in other fields of spaceflight, for no apparent reason other than to give a good image of China's capabilities, and the "Origins" section seems to by trying to paint the entire programme (or would that be program, given a certain user's recent actions) against the backdrop of American aggression. Why the NPOV tag was removed is beyond me. --W. D. Graham 22:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm glad that this time you've decided to use the talkpage. It's very helpful as I couldn't actually guess what you were trying to say. Firstly in regards to
  • "The CSS will inspire people everywhere"
it sounds a lot like the ISS article where
  • "(ARISS) is a volunteer programme which inspires students worldwide.."
  • "There is something about space that touches even people who are not interested in science."
These are broad ideas, and the ISS article is perfectly stable in that regard, but there IS ALWAYS room for improvement. So the full sentence is this :
The CSS will inspire people everywhere, Wang Wenbao, director of the Chinese space agency (CSME), believes that the project "[W]ill enhance national prestige and strengthen the national sense of cohesion and pride."
However, I can't find evidence that the positive feelings about space travel simply stop at the borders. Apparently US congress doesn't seem to like the Chinese space program, that is fair and true, but is that a majority of humanity ?
Should we say that this space station will only inspire people in China ? Or that space stations are not inspirational, or can we find some references to say people don't like it ? Maybe a mention of the US laws that were passed to prevent any kind of co-operation with China, and the rhetoric that went along with it. Would that 'balance' things up ? Although, I am kind of guessing, that if we only included the opinion of a few US critics, and ignored the rest of the world, including the Director of the CSME, and pretty much any reference I can find about Chinese opinion, well, would that be biased also, or undue weight ?
  • The station crew "are our representatives spearheading humanity's exploration of new spaces and possibilities for our future" according to Pope Benedict XVI.
The pope (who sent a medallion to the ISS, and the crew returned it to him in person) is referring to "humanity" which is a very broad term indeed.
I quite like broad terms myself, which encompass all 'humanity' and 'people everywhere'. But I'm very happy to hear what you'd suggest as an alternative. I'd like to know just who is inspired, and who is not inspired. I'd like to say that I'm inspired by space stations. Yes I am. That's why I wrote the article, I think it's cool. But I'd like to know where or who doesn't like it, so I can include what they feel. Do you have any references, or have you heard anything ?
We can copy in how the US has laws to prevent co-operation with China, I'm all for it, I'll support you if you like, although I'm not sure it's actually relevant at all.
Do you think the Origins section should be shortened ? which parts ? A lot of it helps to explain the design of the station and the reason for the station, but I agree there is a LOT of room for improvement in this article.
Also, what is it that you mean when you say "given a certain user's recent actions" who is the editor and what point is it they are trying to make ? Penyulap talk 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to invite ChiZeroOne to use the article talkpage. Penyulap talk 13:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
First off, two wrongs don't make a right. The two examples you cited from the ISS article don't justify OR or bias in this article. (Thank you for pointing them out, Penyulap. They were relatively easy to fix: the first by changing "(AISS) inspires" to "(AISS) encourages"; and the second, which was a copyright violation, by quoting the writer of the comment.)
The problem here, is another matter. No encyclopedia editor has any business writing a sentence like "The CSS will inspire people everywhere" unless he/she is quoting someone, with a reliable source. The comma, instead of a period, separating it from Wang Wenbao's name, makes me wonder if it's part of his quote, in which case it should be quoted here. His words which are quoted make it pretty clear in contex that he's talking there about the people of China being inspired, which does not by itself suppport the conclusion that the entire world will be inspired. If he said that, it should be quoted as well. Otherwise, the statement is unsupported opinion and speculation (who has the crystal ball?)
I also completely agree with WDG that the Origins section is unnecessarily biased toward the PRC political view and gratuitously bashes the US. While it might be useful to explain the history of China's cold-war space program (or rather, the lack of one), that would belong better in Chinese space program (if it's not duplication, which it seems to be.) There is also what seems enough information here on what China did (instead of developing a space station) to fill that article, but doesn't do much to explain China's development of this station (or why they waited until the twenty-first centrury). JustinTime55 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: I forgot to mention, the complete lack of citations in the Purpose section. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That is SO COOL! thanks for pointing out those mistakes. I'm just totally rewriting the article now, with new explanations too. I'd love it if you look it over as well, because seriously, it needs work, it always does. I mean, we can either have no article because of the language barrier, I mean look at western sources, they know nothing of what is going on, or we can work together and make a fine article. I like the latter. Hang on and I'll save in a sentence or three. Penyulap talk 18:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you can, add tags or point out what parts are the most controversial from western perspectives, or if something is so irritating that you just can't stand it, please comment it out. I'm looking for the page full of pictures which is on the internet, with cute space art, it depicts all sorts of Chinese space vehicles and crew, except they are done in something of a classical way, puppies and kids are crew and so forth. Something for the external links/see also section, it's rather weird, because they are actually artists depictions of the hardware of the station, which is really out there, not that I'm saying they should replace the more technical images, it's just food for thought. Anyhow, that reference I want, it is too cool, and such a good read (look). Penyulap talk 19:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Love poetry and art.

this page has a little bit for the tiangong 1 section, but it's just not the right ref, or not alone anyhow, I'm after one that shows some of the actual art which has been made for the space program, there is quite a lot of it, depicting most of the vehicles mentioned in the article. Although, while I certainly think I have no possible way to compare to those artists, I think the current css pic will suffice until another better one is drawn, IT SUCKS in my opinion, even if I made it. but Meh. what can I do, I'm trying to find refs. But the CSS is all nice and white and I need better textures to depict it properly. If people know of some lovely pics I can use to make a similar impressions of the station do tell. Do link. Penyulap talk 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is not quite the thing, this stuff is older and only touches on the cultural or 'propaganda' if you'd like to call it that, aspects of the manned spaceflight projects and the space station. I'm still trying to find the up-to-date similar sort of thing for the CSS and it's prototype hardware, it opens up to readers whole new aspects of the project. Penyulap talk 10:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is another web-page, more space program images, but they are a little old. Where are the up-to-date ones ? Penyulap ☏ 11:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging Tiangong 3 and the CSS

The Chinese Space Station, a large multi-module station, is described in a way that is, or overlaps, Tiangong 3 (T3). T3 is described as the CSS, or as the Core Cabin Module (CCM) of the CSS. According to logic, based on the descriptions available and the timelines given, T3 is either the CSS or the CCM. Penyulap ☏ 04:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

naa it's all good, they just move so much faster than everyone else, I can' wait for the day they are selling space stations on ebay with free shipping, that's the important part, the free postage to Leo. Penyulap ☏ 08:48, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
There's been a lot of conflicting reports on what Tiangong 3 is, so I think we're just going to have to wait until we get more info.--Craigboy (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking to dump the issue because I was reading somewhere 2, 3, and css heavy mentioned or some such so it seemed good again as it is, separate. I think it is better to accept the very rapid pace that the Chinese advance at. I thought in my mind it was a good picture I had, with their flashy cashy space program with caution and lots of savvy as far as learning from the best goes, but didn't give them enough credit for the pace they move at. what with T1 having the manned crew and all.. they are doing so well, so three stations in the next ten years is certainly well within their grasp. zomg poor Nasa. Penyulap ☏ 16:14, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)

robotic construction arm

According to [1] (time index 32min) the large station will use a robotic construction arm, like Canadarm 2. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

true, haven't looked yet, but I have been thinking since writing it that the comparison to the Lyappa arm is not so great. The chinese would use something closer to the ERA, do you know how big it is ? the canadarm2 is kind of huge. Penyulap ☏ 23:59, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)
On this particular issue, I only know what the CCTV coverage said, it will use a constructor arm like "Canada Arm 2" (the commentator said "Canada Arm 2"). Yep, the Canadarm1 and Canadarm2 are huge. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Picture

official picture is here


article with both pics and article with one picture only I know it's a crappy picture, yes it is hideously inaccurate, and I'll do a better one when I have time, but it's not unlike the one on the Space agency website, which is how they depict the station and it's visiting ships and that black module shippy thingy aft of the CCM, or at least it is one of the many ways they depict it. But anyhow the one on their website, and it is one of their official images, irritated me so much, I couldn't stand how it had the shadow of the USOS arrays over the LCM and it's arrays, and I thought I could do a bit better, although I can't, I mean two lighting angles ? whats going on there ? (above and behind) what a supernova cameraflash ? well, at least it's better than adding extra planets like NASA, BLAH, oops NASA, 8P

Anyhow, there is plenty of space in the article for these and more ? I'm working to find some better Tiangongy / Shenzhouie textures to do something better (although it'll take time) I popped both images into the article in the way that they were always meant to be, but I only just realized. Penyulap talk 06:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You are aware the Moon and Mars are placed in those images for metaphorical reasons?--Craigboy (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh I am now, I had thought he was simply stoned in one of those smoke dope to find it's effects kind of uni experiments, but now it's more an appeal to the public sentiments sort of thing, the same way Armageddon made a lot of money, and speeches stir popular support. But yes, I see that it shows the path to Mars and the moon and so forth, and that they'd get there a lot faster with Russian support, those strela cranes would help them reach the Martian surface a lot faster I think. You know, saving lots of money along the way. Penyulap talk 12:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You are one of the hardest people to understand.--Craigboy (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you sincerely, but it is unintentional, actually it's good though, because I can communicate with such wide scope, there is a brilliant programmer who won't talk with anyone else on en wiki, even though his english is perfect. But we find it easier if I explain my ideas in en:var programming, or to put that another way, IF (penyulap uses programming english variant) THEN (collaboration is easy) ELSE (it's hard to understand). Like that.
I think it's especially good for writing articles, to see every readers approachable language and conceptual understanding, like if an artist reads the article, or a technician or a politician, and so on and so forth, seeing all the vectors and all the ideas, or at least as many as is possible and then blending all of it into a pleasing to read informative to everyone kind of article. It's brilliant to collaborate. here is a lovely article I can't summarize into it's main article, as I get a brain hemorrhage and nosebleed after reading the first few sections it's so bland. eeww. That's why I like things to be perfectly accurate, referenced and approachable. (except for the referenced bit). That's why it's really important there is SOMETHING on the talkpage (glare WD) for editors to work with. It's so easy to improve this article with a bit of a chat about things, how do you like the captioning now, is it not as offensive as before ? So how about the 'inspiring' thing, what's your take on it now Craigboy, does it still need work, how can it be improved ? (oh and I don't mean it about the referencing, I just have such a hard time choosing which ref to include, and then don't format them, as it's lower priority for me. I like refs, refs are our fwends) Penyulap talk 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Penylap's picture more closely resembles the official picture from China Manned Space Engineering Office: [2] Craigboy uses a picture from China Daily which is a more removed source and thus less reliable: [3] Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap and I've already discussed and have agreed on the inaccuracy of the source image he used. For more information see below.--Craigboy (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Info for other editors: The "official image" shown above is at least six years old and the design hasn't been seen in another image since. The image also has many design peculiarities.

These images (Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4) represent the design that has been shown for the past few years and appears to be the current one. It is also often shown in Chinese media. --Craigboy (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I do quite agree with inaccuracies in both images, actually, gimme any image at all and I'll give you ten things that are wrong with it in 30 seconds. Sure the colorful picture on the CMSE website is inaccurate, I personally was attracted by the shadow of the US orbital segment's solar panels casting a shadow on the Chinese space station, I thought it hilarious, that's why I redrew it, but thing is, that is what they are using on their website. If it annoys us that much we can just write to them and be like "Oh come on, get with it guys, that picture is so 5 minutes ago!" I can't see why there is any need at all to choose one image over the other when they can simply both go in the article.Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Because we're not depicting an abstract idea.--Craigboy (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Label the illustration as 6 years old, 10 years old, or whatever you like, it's all good. The illustration the space agency artist was working from is by this time getting close to twenty years old I would estimate, your estimate of 6 years old sounds good for when they got out the mouse and drew something, maybe 7 to be safe? I can't see the age as very controversial, so just label it as you please.
The 2-D image is cool and accurate for the configuration of the station, nice and up to date with the design, naturally, configurations and artists depictions and paintings change over time, like the illustrations for (insert your favorite station name) on astronautics.com, there is a whole column full of images showing the changing design of (insert your favorite station name). I like that site and the way it documents the changing images in a timeline kind of way, especially for (insert your favorite station name). I can't see the need why we have to choose just one image and discard all the rest like this was the Featured picture committee thingy, if astronautics threw out all of their pictures and just kept one, well, boring.Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Because it confuses readers and editors like Acadēmica Orientālis, what the space station is planned to look like. I thought we came to a conclusion on the severe inaccuracies of the base image you used and how it looks like some graphic designer had just tossed together without any input.--Craigboy (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I support both images being in the article. Thing is, if I had to choose one image, and knowing how I do like the official versions on the official websites, it would be a tougher call, but the thing is, there is no need for a one-or-the-other choice, just use both, and label them as you please. :I quite support having a depiction of the Chinese governments own artists impression. I do like the idea of drawing up more images, exactly like the ones you point to, but seriously, what on earth is the point of doing that if there is no place to document them on the 'wik ? Seriously Craigboy, tell me, if you were me, would you bother to draw pictures if they just get thrown out ? Penyulap ☏ 23:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, why should we included an image that is very inaccurate? Just because you spent time on an image doesn't mean it belongs in the article.--Craigboy (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Not because I drew it, omg no, consider it upon it's merits alone. Look at the one on the space agency website, look at the ones you link to above, we are not here to pick and choose which swimsuit is the best, were here to fill big dusty encyclopedias with blerk old black and white illustrations for people to look back on in years to come. So it's a historical list, not a first place podium, we want to have a copy of all of the images that are linked to in this section, we want all of them in the article to say, this is the history of illustrations of the CSS. In years to come, when they actually build it and we have real pictures, they'll elbow the pictures out of this article into their own sub article, but we don't have enough for a sub article as yet. I mean this article was quite funny to write actually, as there was I think, I dunno, a paragraph somewhere else, and then *BAM* big article about something that doesn't exist, what a lark. (grumble tooth fairy *#$%*(&%^). If we are going to document and catalog and classify and, like butterflies, stick pins though the space stations and stick them in a picture frame under glass all in a row, we can't just throw out all pennies that are not this year from our collection, we have to put them all into the article, or make a new drawer to put them in. There is room for everything, or we just make room. Like that.
The only thing about drawing the images is, that is all that we can do, as the Chinese gov doesn't give out anything for free. Russia as well. We'll never get pictures for wikipedia if we don't draw them ourselves, I can't see that changing in the near future. We want to add them all, but the copyright stops us. Penyulap ☏ 01:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Penyulap, how is anything you just said relevant?--Craigboy (talk) 02:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
What's that saying they have, wikipedia is not about truth, it's about verifiability? I don't know, but I do know we are supposed to document stuff, not to determine if the artist at the agency was any good. Anyhow, if I can't explain properly, just ask about for extra people who can do a better job of it as well. The image doesn't need to be current in any way to be in the encyclopedia. We have lots of old pics, even old pics of the ISS design, so they all belong you see. Given the rate of change of the design of the CSS, we've got something like a dozen design changes at least to document before the first module blasts into orbit. If we are going to cut out each image from the encyclopedia as each new one is drawn, what on earth is the point of drawing them, maybe we can just ask a few extra people, or better, just ask at a discussion board, and someone can quickly explain it a lot better than I can, pointing to some docs or something. Penyulap ☏ 02:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Those old renderings of the ISS are not used to depict the current state of the ISS. We can also verify that those were actual designs given the extensive documentation we have on the ISS program. We do not know if this image was actually a design but we know for a fact its an edited version of an image showing the Russian segment of the ISS.--Craigboy (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Since CMSE is displaying the image very prominently it is hard to argue that it is incorrect. Newspapers are more removed and thus less reliable sources. Also, I find Penyulap's image much more aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore, it is difficult to get a good understanding of the space station based on Craigboy's 2D image which is missing one dimension. Penyulap, in order to resolve this dispute, have you considered making another image based on the appearance of the space station in, say, this CMSE image: [4]? Maybe just changing the appearance of the space station in your current image but keeping the background? Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't really call it a dispute as far as my part goes, Craigboy is a good editor, and when he is getting out of hand I just glare at him -(O)-(O)- until he crumbles :) Thing is, I reckon we are ALL talking past each other to some degree, although I do see your point about the aesthetics, that is true enough for positioning and so forth, I thought the same myself, as the 2D image has a technical nature, more accurate for the currently suggested configuration, but the older image that they are displaying gives a better feel through many fields or view. I don't think the 2D image is as inspiring to the 'common man' as the 3D image, even in it's woeful state, and inspiration, love poetry, propaganda, there are so many dynamics to be illustrated that for position, well....
Yes, I have considered, it is definitely on my list of things to do, that is why I asked Craigboy and discussed the images earlier, so I could find the best ones to base my next drawing on. But at the moment the computer for rendering is not setup, but I will fix that soon enough, but then again I'm very distracted on a number of fronts at the moment, and there is RL, and so on.
Craigboy, you're saying it's the ROS only because I have been saying it all along ! :) I can't recall right now where i got the original image for my illustration before, but had you seen it before, like where is it ? The old picture on the CSME website is an official concept. The top brass do things for a reason, and the reasons vary. For some it's about the configuration of the modules, for some it's all about the science, for some it's about the propaganda, the inspiration, the science fiction aspects, the pioneering aspects, the theological and philosophical aspects. I tell you the configuration will change many times before they are done, myself I'm doubtful about the EVA hatch placement, I can't see that staying still for 12 months in a row myself. But overall, when you try to illustrate the greatest number of these many aspects in the one illustration, HEY! stop for a second, you read that list too fast ! here, I'll say it again, but this time you should pause and try to see the space station in these aspects :
  • about the science,
  • about the propaganda,
  • the inspiration,
*the science fiction quite right
  • the pioneering spirit,
  • the theological insight into the universe
*philosophical. i got nothing there.
pick out any two of those, or all of them, and score the images in each category, and once you have decided, and understand why they have the 6 year old image, then maybe were all on the same page.
(No doubt tomorrow the #*$@ CSME will update their image just to toy with us, although, actually it won't matter, as it's still their 'early concept') Penyulap ☏ 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The image for this article is not supposed to be "about the science, propaganda, inspiration, science fiction, pioneering spirit, theological insight into the universe or philosophy. It should depict the planned large orbital space station. See Choosing images.--Craigboy (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

that is a fair point, lets look at what we have in the article,

  • Purpose
    • national prestige 1
    • national sense of cohesion and pride .5 point
    • We will adhere to the policy of opening up to the outside world" <-hmm, maybe international co-operation ? ah, zero for either of us
    • Scientists of all countries are welcome to participate in space science experimental research on China's space station, zero
    • LOTS of blah blah blah about sending people into space. maybe that's like pioneering spirit. 1 point
  • Precursor space stations
    • I figure this might do as support for LOS ? I'm not sure, up to you. 1 for Craigboy
  • Naming the CSS
    • Wah! plenty here, Divine this and divine that, looks good for what would we call this, propaganda, inspiration, theological insight or philosophy ? I don't know, but that's gotta be worth at least 1 point to me eh ?
    • Two feelings and one sense has to be bare minimum 1 point, but really should be 2, but call it one.
    • strengthen it's position and promote patriotism, half a point
  • Structure
    • modular design, we both get a point here
    • Modules, both get a point
    • Systems, Docking, Craigboy gets the point here, cause your diagram has the ships included I left them out.
  • Resupply undisputed point to Craigboy
  • safety
    • What we got here, it's all radiation and the space environment, oooh, I SO get a point there for depicting space.

What do you figure ? or as they say in 'aussie' what do you reckon ? (I fell off my chair laughing when someone went to so much trouble to hide when they were editing that out of the article) Penyulap ☏ 19:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you've gone off-topic again.--Craigboy (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you can't see the article for the title. :) Penyulap ☏ 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The pic is still not completely awful, I put it back. Penyulap ☏ 16:06, 20 Jun 2012 (UTC)
It does not depict the CSS. You are going against wikipedia's policy on image use.--Craigboy (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure it does, it looked just like the picture on the Chinese government's own website. You can tell them they don' know what the station looks like if you want, I'll even back you up on that. I read the section you point to, and it looks like we have the very best pic available right now for the lede according to that, why don't you think it is ? Penyulap ☏ 08:55, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
"I noticed that as well" was meant to be my edit summary, (broken keyboard) Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've have found the NASA rendering that was modified to make this image, it can be found here. I am removing Penyulap's image from the article. I am doing this because I believe I have presented enough evidence to make it abundantly clear that the image Penyulap based his drawing on is inaccurate and therefore his own drawing is also inaccurate. Since he never fixed his image and since I don't have ability to, I have no choice but to remove it from the article. I cannot reach Penyulap's due to his indefinite ban and Academica Orientalis has be unresponsive despite a request made to his talk page. If any editors have any questions or comments than I will be happy to respond to them.--Craigboy (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of info

http://www.kacstaerospace.org/2012/en/images/speakers/pdf/14-Liwei.pdf

--Craigboy (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Project West Ford antenna count

The Project West Ford antenna count posted on this page is 750,000,000 when the antenna count mentioned on the actual PWF page is at 480,000,000. I believe there's an inconsistency here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.172.27 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Gravity (film)

So, the 2013 film "Gravity" starring George Clooney and Sandra Bullock significantly features this station in the 60-ton configuration, giving it the name "Tiangong" and making it look like the full-up Mir. Seems like a mention should be placed in here. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Why it's not here already? --Ita140188 (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
actually the station doesn't look like mir, it appears to be base on the original design of ISS, the UDM which was never usedAkinkhoo (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chinese large modular space station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese large modular space station. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chinese large modular space station. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tiangong article?

Why does this not simply point to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tiangong_program ? What is the purpose of a different page on the same subject? Avt tor (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is pretty much the same and they should be merged. -- Sion8 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Sion8 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The article you link to describes a larger programme that includes building of several separate stations. This article here describes only one of those stations. However, these two articles could be more focused; this one doesn't need any information on its precursors. Brilliantwiki2 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Chinese large modular space station. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chinese large modular space station. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources of Interest

While looking for sources for timeline of the near future, I came across the following sources discussing this station:

  • "China's moon, Mars and space station missions may be facing delays". SpaceNews.com. 21 June 2019.
  • Jones, Andrew. "This Is China's New Spacecraft to Take Astronauts to the Moon (Photos)". Space.com. Retrieved 24 October 2019.

The second one says the likely launch date of the space station is 2021. Rockphed (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiangong_space_station/Archive_1&oldid=1137252443"