This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Mir was a Russian space station that was humanity's first permanently inhabited space station."
-- umm, are you sure it was really the first one? Or is "permanently" the keyword here? To my knowledge, it wasn't entirely "permanent" in that matter, there were certain uninhabited gaps between expeditions every now and then, especially near the end of the station existance... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.8.89 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2004 (UTC)
Length
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article is tool long, adn attractsw warnings when it is edited. it seems to have some duplication, and also tables and lists which could be moved or found elsewhere.
Our best move is probably to give the tables their own pages. I'll see if I can give it a shot. Deltabeignet 22:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Mir Expeditions and Spacewalks
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Deltabeignet, you did a really good job listing all of the Mir visiting crews, Expeditions and spacewalks. Thanks for all your hard work. This must have taken a long time to gather and list all of that information. It's people like you that make Wikipedia great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.137.164 (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I wish I could take credit; I just moved the tables to their own articles after some comments on the page's size. Thanks for the appreciation, though; it's people like you that keep us all going. Deltabeignet 9 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
as an Russian,
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In Russian, Mir (Мир) means "peace," and connotes "community."
As a Russian, I want to say Мир never meant anything like "community".
Мир means world, Мир means peace, that's all this word mean. Ilyak 21:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As a Russian too I confirm this. Never knew of such a meaning like "community". --Bricktop 21:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's a connotation of community like in "mirskoy sud", "vsem mirom". But it is an anachronism and ertainly that's not the meaning put into the name of the station.
Oh yes, you're correct. But mentioning this obscure meaning and not "world" is something strange. I think it should be fixed. Ilyak 10:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
cool...you can edit an encyclopedia!! :]
Wrong Photo
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The picture captioned "The Mir space station" is actually a picture of some guy with a moustache. Huh? 23 July 2005
reverted this. --Bricktop 10:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
space staion launching
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
please... answer this!! where are launching pads in the USA??
This is not really relivant, but there are a lot, all over the country. The main ones are at Vandenberg AFB and Cape Canaveral. Mir was a Soviet space station, and therefore launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, in the Soviet Union (Now Kazaksthan). In future, please post in a more appropriate place. I suggest searching for "US Space Program". --GW_Simulations 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Photo of Kvant-1 module
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The photo displayed of Kvant-1 module is wrong. Kvant-1 was smaller than FGB or DOS modules. I suppose you have displayed the Kant-1 with the FGB tug. Compare the diagram you show with these other in http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kvant.htm : it's obviously shorter. 193.144.147.23 21:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (I'm not registered in English, but I do in Spanish as Lon Abirisain)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I reverted back changes made by User:Amire80 because I didn't find any peacock terms there. Many space missions which exceeded their initial goals are described as "highly successful". For example Mars Pathfinderis described as "completely successful", Viking program - "highly successful", and many others, should we separate them from their success? ComradeWolf 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"Highly successful" is quite close to "well-known", "one of the best...", "one of the most important..." and they are all listed as peacock tersm.
Just as WP:APT says, the article describes very well why this station was successful, so this expression is not needed. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
Space Mould?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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...
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)
Request for Expansion/Integration
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
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 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)
Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
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)
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)
I redirected that page here. The content is there in the page history if anyone cares. Mangojuicetalk 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
citation needed
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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) File:Astropin.gif
Thank you! I did it. BTW, that is a cool looking barnstar.Vgranucci 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"She" as a pronoun
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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 March2001, 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)
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)
Help with "international cooperation" section needed
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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)
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)
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)
Taco Bell
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Mir on political button?
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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.
The user hopiakuta above had tried to figure out how to display Мир. Cleaned up his post and the heading. -- Matthead Discuß 01:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
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?
Science on Mir
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Occupied for 4592 days?
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Has this record been broken by the International Space Station? I'm reading that today is the 10th anniversary of the first module's launch. I am not an expert (nor a registered Wikipedia user) but perhaps someone more familiar with these things should verify that the record still stands. --Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.121.5.213 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Is the 9 years and 257 days correct or incorrect?
On this article: "The Mir programme currently holds the record for the longest uninterrupted human presence in space, at 9 years and 257 days"
On the ISS wikipedia article: "The [ISS] programme is thus approaching the current record for uninterrupted human presence on a space station, set aboard Mir, of 3,644 days (8 days short of 10 years), with the ISS expected to take the record on 23 October 2010."
Should change the 9 years 257 days if it is incorrect. Quiteokay (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Burn-up video animation
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Years and years ago, I was shown a several minute-long video animation of how the station structure fell apart in re-entry; Anyone know where I can download this from? It was a great educational tool for kids to learn re-entry for large man-made structures.Pomona17 (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Bravo! That'll be the one. Thanks, Andy :>)Pomona17 (talk) 14:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To do list
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I number of items of the list I feel I completed a while ago and so I've moved them to the done section. If anyone feels they are not done, please say why. Aalox (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
See Also
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I believe the "Paco Rabanne" link in See Also section has nothing to do with Mir station. 88.114.251.11 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Burrough
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This source may be worthy of reference/ inclusion somewhere in the artilce: Burrough, B. (1998), Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard MIr, New York, Harper Collins? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
International cooperation
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm a bit worried that the 'international cooperation' section deals only with Shuttle-Mir; we need to write up some coverage of programmes such as Intercosmos and Euromir... Colds7ream (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I did expand the 'internation cooperation' section with a bit more information on Intercosmos and Shuttle-Mir. As for Euromir, there is no article on it so I will put this on my to do list and update this section when its done. Tinss (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Cleanup complaints
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
May the authors who set various "cleanup" marks please specify exactly what content they consider faulty - and/or improve the text and remove the mark? Thanks. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
40 by 40-foot Taco Bell target is small, not large.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would consider 40 by 40 foot small, on the size of the ocean. I also question the notability of it in the first place. I replaced "large" by "40 by 40-foot", forgot to add a reason to the change, sorry for that. 88.159.72.240 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Final days and deorbit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I fail to understand why the gimmick by Taco Bell deserves a mention. Removing it. Haroonn1 (talk) 08:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with your analysis - seems fairly pointless. Colds7ream (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I second. This is trivia with regards to Mir and should either have its own article or be moved to the Taco Bell page.Tinss (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Space tourism
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
At two different occasions there is a mention on the subject of space tourism on Mir. First on Toyohiro Akiyama and then on Peter Rodney Llewellyn almost making it. I believe this information should be removed as it is already included in Spaceflight participant. Anyone agrees?Tinss (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Air quality inside Mir.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Found a very exhaustive but technical document document comparing the air quality of Mir with that of the ISS. It would be worthy of using as resource to expand the Mir#Life on Board section. Tinss (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Eastern nations
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a question: what is to be understood under the "various eastern nations" ? Eastern Europe? Asia? Never heard of an "eastern nation". My advice is to paraphrase it.
(Vadimka (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC))
Eastern Bloc, I guess. Colds7ream (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Flights
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to raise an interesting question put to me last week elsewhere on Wikipedia. First, there is currently a geo-centic bias that all space flights begin and end on Earth. Clearly this will not and cannot be the case in the long term when flights are initiated from other established bases or colonies. It has been argued (not orginally be me) that the Moon missions involved two flights as they contained two landings and two launches. But it was put to me that a flight to a space station and then a return on a different space craft many months later is two flights. (Though does it necessarily need to be a different craft?) I raise the question here, because in the mission of Soyuz T-15 the same logic would suggest there were 4 flights in this mission. (1) Launch and docking with Mir, 50 day stay on Mir); (2) trip Mir to Salyut 7, 56 day stay (trip took 29 hours) (3) trip Salut 7 to Mir, 20 day stay (trip took 29 hours) (4) trip Mir to Earth. Is there an official definition. Is there a distinction to be made between, "mission", flights", "trips". NASA only records the mission from and to the Earth in their biographies. Comments. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about an "official definition".. I'd generally say "mission", "flight", "spaceflight" and "trip" are all pretty interchangeable and flexible terms. More specifically, "missions" probably start with a launch (from Earth, for the moment!) and end with a landing. Regarding (the relatively exceptional case of) Soyuz T-15, I'd probably say the entire mission was one "spaceflight", and one "mission", and maybe call the individual components (like between stations, and to and from Earth) something like "journeys", as the article does. But there might not be a widely used term here.. after all, the number of manned "journeys" between two different objects in space, neither of which is the Earth or the Moon, is very limited.. in fact, Soyuz T-15 might be the only one. So maybe we'll worry about terminology once it becomes a frequent event (probably still a long way off!). Mlm42 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Problem with a sentence
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
"...Mir was the first of the third generation type of space station, constructed from 1986 to 1996 with a modular design,..."
Mir was a third generation of Soviet space station, but I can see no source stating it was a third generation type of space station or the first of a series. It wasn't really the first of an actual series, calling the ISS part of the Mir series because of its incorporation of part of Mir-2 is somewhat of a stretch. This would tend to indicate “third generation type” refers to its modularity, but it would actually be the first of a second type that includes the ISS as the previous stations we're all monolithic, and this is consistent with the space station article. So which is it? Should it be,
“Mir was the first of an intended series of third generation Soviet space stations, distinguished by a modular design.”
or,
“Mir was the first of a second generation type of space station, featuring a modular design.”? ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
From what I gather it's not so much because of resupply but the fact that they had multiple docking ports, which of course goes hand in hand with resupply. As such this means they were the precursors of modular stations, which require multiple ports. But is this an actual distinction made in reliable sources and if so can it be in-line cited? There is clearly contradiction between a number of Wikipedia articles (none of the claims appearing cited) between whether there are two (monolithic & modular) or three (monolithic, monolithic plus multiple ports & modular) types of space station. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Sentence check
Hey, I've been copy editing the article, and I found a curious sentence in the "Pressurised modules" section table that might be incorrect:
The base block for the entire Mir complex... provided early attitude control systems and contained the station's main engines.
Is "attitude" the correct word? It seems to me that "altitude" might be the correct word.
Hi! Thanks a lot for giving the article a copyedit; it's much appreciated. Worry not, attitude is the correct word - it refers to the spacecraft's orientation; see Flight dynamics (aircraft). :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph could use better structure.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I find the lead paragraph of the subsection "Third start" to be a bit confusing and disorganized. Because I am not all that certain the intent of the paragraph, I think it would be best if someone with more expertise could help this paragraph grow.
"The launch of Soyuz TM-8 on 5 September 1989 marked the beginning of the longest human presence in space up until 23 October 2010 (when this record was surpassed by the ISS). It also marked the beginning of Mir's second expansion. The Kvant-2 and Kristall modules were now ready for launch. Alexander Viktorenko and Aleksandr Serebrov docked with Mir and brought the station out of its five-month hibernation. On 29 September the cosmonauts installed equipment in the docking system in preparation for the arrival of Kvant-2, the first of the 20 tonne add-on modules based on the TKS spacecraft from the Almaz programme."
The first sentence is okay, but the note about it being the "longest human presence in space until ISS" has been given several times in this article, and I am not sure if it needs to be included here. The second and third sentences are very short and I think they could be stated better. I think the best way to structure this paragraph would be to start with the launch of the Soyuz TM-8 and the docking of Viktorenko and Serebrov with Mir. Then, follow that with what they did there, which is, I presume, expand the station by installing the Kvant-2 and Kristall.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the intent of the original paragraph. I am just offering suggestions for things that I think could use improvement. --Tea with toast(talk) 03:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to sort it out as you see fit - I think you've got the intent of the paragraph, and to be honest my priority was just getting the information in; I didn't much think about good English... :-) Colds7ream (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Because of budget and design constraints, Freedom never progressed past mock-ups and minor component tests and, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Space Race, Freedom was nearly cancelled by the United States House of Representatives. A little confusing. "Freedom never progressed" and "Freedom was nearly cancelled" appear to be contradictory statements. Done
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) says: "The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size." Done
Licensed, with suitable rationales where necessary, captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
THis is nearly there, just a few issues to be addressed. on Hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think this is an interesting an excellent article from which I learnt a lot. I feel that it has the makings of a featured article. Problems that may arise there include the page numbers for every cite of the books. They are quite picky there. If you wish to take it on, then perhaps get a peer review making it clear that you are aiming for FA status. Good luck and congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for giving the article a good looking over and the copyediting; it's much appreciated. :-) I've sorted the flags, and, I hope, disambiguated the sentence about Freedom. I've also added page numbers to some more sources, the exceptions being the 1989 paper on micrometeoroid damage to solar arrays, as the citation is essentially the entire paper, and the books, which are used so many times I'd pretty much be giving page ranges as the complete book. Hope that sorts things out, and thanks again! Colds7ream (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Order of Article?
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's been bothering me that the Final days and deorbit section is not the last one, so I was wondering if there was any reason the Station operations section is ordered the way it is? To me, it's quite jarring to go from a third-level heading about the deorbit of Mir to a second-level heading about visiting vehicles. It looks to me like section 5.1 is about the history of manned visits to Mir with some additional history, whereas the rest of section 5 is indeed about station operations. What would you all think of making section 5.1 the new section 5 (Something like Expeditions to Mir) and have 5.2 through 5.4 as section 6, Station operations? (Incidentally, do we call them sections?) 107.10.34.34 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed we do, they're sections alright. Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me if there are no objections. Colds7ream (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Mir Docking Hub Cone & Module Movements
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Well folks, we've been gifted a very nice PDF document showing the movements of the Conus drogue and Mir's modules over the station's lifetime, but its currently in a section which reads like an image description and bears no relation to the rest of the article - obviously the accompanying text will have to go (I've already merged it into the file description on Commons), but where do we think the image itself would best be located? Colds7ream (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Inline refs in infobox?
While reading a confusing news article that mentioned Mir, I came here to find out its mass. The infobox refs aren't with the facts currently, they're all at the bottom in the stats_ref parameter, and they're not really inline if they're not at the facts - verifiability is surely much more important than how pretty it looks. I couldn't find the 129 700 kg mass in the refs that looked like they would have it. According to [4] it was 130 000-140 000 kg. Can we move them up like at least the mass of Skylab's article? -- Jeandré, 2011-10-12t04:42z — Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 12 October 2011
Reference 17
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey folks, User:Leebrandoncremer has just added a new citation, the 'Space Shuttle Almanac', to the Assembly section, but I'm worried it might breach WP:SPS - anyone got any thoughts on the matter? Colds7ream (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
With understanding a peer review is in progress I would like to discuss here the lead sentence of the article, currently:
Mir (Russian: Мир, IPA:[ˈmʲir]; lit. Peace or World) was a Soviet and later Russianspace station, operational in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001. I feel the order in which information is presented in lead sentences is important. Thus I propose: Mir (Russian: Мир, IPA:[ˈmʲir]; lit. Peace or World) was a space station operated in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001, at first by the Soviet Union and then by Russia. (sdsds - talk) 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I could go either way, but I don't think a change is absolutely imperative at this point. Tyrol5[Talk] 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Made the change - it does indeed read better, IMHO! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Mark Wade
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I should point out that the article Mark Wade is of a basketball player, and pressumably different from the person in the references. More importantly, are you sure Encyclopedia Astronautica is a "reliable source" in the Wikipedia sense? Since it is a website set up by a space enthusiast, it gives me the impression that there is no fact-checking mechanism involved; but I'm not sure. Fortunately there is often a bibliography supplied, so it may be possible to check the secondary sources directly. Mlm42 (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is reliable. The NASA PAO offices often refer people to the website! The ISS FAC established that. -MBK004 03:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, good to know. Mlm42 (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Its a mixed bag. Somethings are accurate others are not.--Craigboy (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Infobox image
Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello to anyone out there who watches this page! I'd like to attempt to gauge some opinion as to which image of the station we should be using in the articles' infobox; whilst the one we have currently is a great photo, it obscures somewhat the core module and Kvant-1, whilst cropping the corner of one of the solar arrays and the distal end of the docking module. As such, I'd like to see whether people think we should keep to the current image, or use another, with some of my suggestions in the gallery - I look forward to getting some feedback! Colds7ream (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I like the current picture. SPLETTE :]How's my driving? 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Some random remarks about the article (I am no expert on the subject, so I won't comment on content):
"The first launch attempt on February 16, 1986 was scrubbed" should maybe rephrased?
Some paragraphs are intensely wikified while others are not.
Quite some of the references are not properly formatted.
units: in one instance tonnes and short tonnes are given, in other instances just tonnes
lead: the whole number thing is too detailed for the lead: 9 years and 257 days, 437 days 18 hours, twelve and a half years of its fifteen-year lifespan...I trimmed it a bit.
I think too much emphasis is given to the Shuttle-Mir period with respect to the previous period where it was operated by the Russians alone. But maybe the reason for that is that it's not so easy to find material in English about that period?
'program' vs 'programme' and British vs American English. I have no preference but we should stay consistent.
Would be nice to bring this to FA quality. SPLETTE :]How's my driving? 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh gosh yes, it needs a LOT of work; at the moment I'm trying to gather some sources to fill in some of the blanks, which is difficult given that (a) the station was operated by a secretive government and (b) most documentations about it is in Russian. Still, we do what we can. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've found a much higher resolution version of the view from STS-79, so I'm going to send it via the image workshop and then replace the current image with the resulting cleaned image; it offers a better vire of all the station's modules, and the only reason I didn't replace the current image with this one in the first place was its low resolution; problem solved! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, I think you were probably right, Splette - I've changed it back. Colds7ream (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the STS-91 image because it didn't provided a very good view of all the modules and because part of the station was out of frame. I would have gone with the STS-81 image above if part of the station wasn't cropped out. The STS-89 image below is the one I decided to go with. What does everyone else think?--Craigboy (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"The seven NASA astronauts who carried out long-duration missions on Mir" is cool within just the shuttle-mir programme, however, if you go image to image down the page, then it really illustrates the caption is somewhat misleading. long would be in relation to shuttle missions, or the crew who came along on the Soyuz during change over, they'd be visitors. The longest duration missions were done by cosmonauts rather than astronauts. Rather than say "the astronauts who carried out the long duration missions, similar to the Russians who carried out long duration missions as opposed to the Russians who carried out the long long long missions, or the Russians and Americans who carried out the short missions. Well, it seems like long is good, however it is easily confused with the record setting missions, if you were looking for who set the records, you'd think you've found them with that caption. Penyulap ☏ 02:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Intro
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The intro section is much too long. Ben Finn (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
How many days in service?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first module was launched on 19 February 1986 at 21:28:23 UTC.
Deorbit took place on 23 March 2001 at 05:59 UTC.
According to my calculation the station was in space for 5510 days and 8.5 hours. And we have 5519 days in infobox. Quite a big difference. Same mistake is in table in Salyut programme article. Someone please check if I'm right.Pikador (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Chris Hadfield visited
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
According to the Chris Hadfield article, he visited Mir. Could this be added to the article?
67.177.69.217 (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is is italicised?
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Why is Mir italicised? Is it because it no longer exists? If so why aren't the Salyut stations and Skylab italicised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good question. Italics are normally used for articles on artistic works. Mir doesn't count as an artistic work so I have removed the italics. 86.153.28.37 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Mir. 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 to let others know.
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).
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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It reads: "As a result, most of the station' occupants were Russian; however, through international collaborations such as the Intercosmos, Euromir and Shuttle-Mir programmes, the station was made accessible to astronauts from North America, several European nations and Japan."
Scrolling down one can find that the first non-Russian visitors where from Syria, Bulgaria and Afghanistan. They where probably no astronauts and two of them not from the places mentioned in the introduction. What does North America stand for - where there astronauts from all north american nations at Mir?
I therefore suggest (chronological order): "As a result, most of the station' occupants were Russian; however, through international collaborations such as the Intercosmos, Euromir and Shuttle-Mir programmes, the station was made accessible to space travelers from several Asian, European and North American nations." --Rabenkind (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
In addition, I think that first sentence:"As a result, most of the station' occupants were Russian;" is not true. As stated in List of Mir visitors there were more american astronauts than russian (but there were more russian trips than american).
--MartiMugo (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
not the greatest
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Now it says:
"It had a greater mass than any previous spacecraft. At the time it was the largest artificial satellite in orbit"
With 129,700 kg it was less than a typical Apollo spacecraft on the Earth orbit. English Wikipedia on Saturn V says
"payload capacity to low Earth orbit (LEO) of 140,000 kg". The data on Apollo's mass on Earth orbit seems missing in the English Wikipedia pages on Apollo flights, but e.g. the Polish page on Apollo 16 says "140 040 kg"
--Wlodr (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
ENGVAR
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Per this old revision the article appears to have been written in British English. Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to standardise on this in the article. --John (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
That's done. --John (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Mir. 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).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mir. 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).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mir. 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).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"...that operated in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001, operated by the Soviet Union..."
Can one of the "operated" be changed to something else?--Adûnâi (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Core module launch date?
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The text mentions a launch date of 19 February 1986 at 21:28:23 UTC. It refers to the Encyclopedia Astronautica, but the cited archived version does not mention this at all, and the current page doesn't have second precision ("1986 February 19 - . 21:28 GMT"). The "Pressurised modules" section's table refers to 19 February without a source.
The infobox says "20 February" without a source, and the launch is mentioned on February 20. The Mir Core Module page also has 20 Feb as the launch date citing two sources. The first doesn't mention any launch date as far as I can see. The other (the "Mir Hardware Heritage" report from 1995) has 19 Feb as the launch date in several places, but it also mentions 20 Feb once in a note about the 50000th orbit (page 149) with a source of simply "Vandenberg" (which might refer to a Chris van der Berg).
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not an expert on Mir or space or anything, but the way the article describes the schedule (under heading "Life on Board" > "Crew Schedule") seems contradictory. First there are two paragraphs that describe the daily schedule, which seems fairly relaxed. Then there's a paragraph describing how Jerry Linenger thought it was way too uptight. I feel like that could use some clarifying, but I don't understand the issue well enough to do it myself. Any help would be appreciated! Flowernerd (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Done
From STS-89.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}