Talk:Space architecture

Etymology

The section on etymology seems out-of-place and unnecessary, though some of the points such as the discussion of the distinction between "Space Architecture" as the more general or as the more specific form of architecture seem warranted. Can anyone give a good reason not to get rid of most of this section?129.92.250.45 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange, I came here to say just this. Let's give it another week to see if anyone responds. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The "problem" that I think the author is trying to address is that architects frequently speak of "space" to refer to any kind of habitable volume. For example, a Google search for [space architecture] also leads to https://spacestl.com/ -- a terrestrial architectural design firm that calls itself "Space Architecture" http://spacestl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/space-sign-4.jpg 2601:40F:4481:9480:C942:F211:23A6:EFF3 (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Verne interior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Verne interior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Verne interior.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Brushes and vacuum

"These dust particles can't be brushed away in a vacuum". Why not? Midgley (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Virgin Galactic Ad?

As Much as I'm excited to see Virgin Galactic's private space tourism project take off, the section on this article seems like an ad. 12.203.226.194 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Source/Notability of images

The structural diagrams in the gallery aren't particular, specific designs or approaches - rather they appear to be hobbyist designs by a single person. Are they at all useful for the discussion? 58.6.253.196 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Space architecture. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930025908/http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html to http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/kloeris/05-01-01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091005082516/http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/ to http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_II/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071002204030/https://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/14day4_orbits456.htm to https://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/14day4_orbits456.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903144152/http://www.astronautix.com/fam/martions.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/fam/martions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090711163533/http://www.fmars2009.org/ to http://www.fmars2009.org/

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) 07:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Space architecture. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE06_1393/PV2006_7471.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416114526/http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/%260_shttlovrvw.htm to http://www.columbiassacrifice.com/%260_shttlovrvw.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725144742/http://cio.gsfc.nasa.gov/externalflash/international/ to http://cio.gsfc.nasa.gov/externalflash/international/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116233913/http://astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm

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) 08:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dispute

Sorry for using the default (& offputting?) heading from the section's box template but that's about all I can do for now.

From my edit summary:

Removed *blatant* advertising copy (but the section states things as fact that need verifying): "The spaceflight experience offered by Virgin Galactic promises to transform access to space and indeed the very idea of an astronaut."

From the hidden comment of my edit to Space architecture § Virgin Galactic:

This section contains statements phrased as future facts ("SS2 will...") that need rephrasing ("As of [date], SS2 is designed to..." "has been tested to have..." See also Template:As of.) and verification of accuracy. Please consider further condensing this section, especially concerning SS2. If relevant, some Virgin Galactic-centric material directly about space architecture can be added, or the header could be changed. Thank you, Geekdiva (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion under Varieties in Suborbital

Add a paragraph in Suborbital section on architecture that defy gravity and completely liberate itself from the ground. This type can float in the air without crossing the boundary of space and reach orbital speed; a work done by researcher Dr. Georges Kachaamy.

Suggested wording :

For Gravity Defiant Architecture Dr. Georges Kachaamy has been conducting ongoing research and exhibitions of airborne architecture known by Rising Oases that are completely detached from the ground and float in the air.

-Josy-(TM) (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Not done That is out of scope for this article: Space architecture is the theory and practice of designing and building inhabited environments in outer space.

"Architecture" in this context means the structure of spacecraft, not of buildings, even ones that futuristically float in the air like science fiction. JustinTime55 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Consideration of autonomous and modular construction in space architecture

Moving the discussion to this talk page as the article may need improvements.

I have kept their suggested drafts in this sandbox. Further discussion can be done here. @~2026-26979-79 Sddarealone (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm cutting the etymology section of space arhetecture to focus ore on the space & archetecture parts togather 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Im also removing some content that are worded like bloat and might haave some rewrriting for that 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

In the user talk page where you reached out, you said you weren't an expert on space and you're now editing the article while making unexplained deletions in edit summary that was unasked. Can you state any reasons for doing so or the edits will need to be reverted. The dispute was only about adding autonomous space architecture and not removing other content in the article. Sddarealone (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

yes, some of the content is adding exxtra bubbles of information that was not factually correct. The others are mainly historical corrections (Space shuttle beign retired early on and adding a link to Tiangong station the other permently habitatable space station in earth orbit. I also moved further reading and external links down to meet MOS:ORDER 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure of the factually incorrect claim for the deleted content? When I last checked, they were supported by reliable sources in the article. Sddarealone (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Why yes, although the detail does not lie in the fact that they are correct or not, but poorly worded. All ive done is remove sentences that are not supported by the citation fully and shortend the remaining sentences.

here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=prev&oldid=1353484077, what ive done is remove a detailed explainer on Nuclear Submarines and Air force one that is not related to Space Archetechture, just archetecture involvement.

Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=prev&oldid=1353478934 I removed excessive data from jules vernes book and codensed it into a more comprehensivestatement, still source-supported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=next&oldid=1353484268, While Salyut 7 was introducted modularity with that Kosmos module, Mir was the first true modular station. I also condesed data from the Spaceship 1 and two, which i belive are still source-supportive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=next&oldid=1353489735, Here i reworded the phrase as the LEM is still the only human capable spacecraft left after use in space. I moved Von brouns statement up as most of it is still mentioned in source

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=next&oldid=1353491266, Here Kaguyas camera statement is redundant as the earlier part of the line mentiones cameras and other equipment

i could have made mistakes, but i have taken care to avoid them 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Im pausing further actions on my part in case i've done something horrendously wrong, but when i saw the article i was pretty much like, yeaah, this needs fixing. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to add, here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_architecture&diff=cur&oldid=1353478724, i also moved an external link down. Agian this was seprate to the previous conversation, I had not visited this article previously in my memory. I ve also done some correction works at the etymology section also. Pardon the spelling errors, im working on a tablet 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

With your justifications for the earlier revisions, this looks suitable for the article but it will require copy editing as you might have introduced spelling errors or links misplaced in it. Good job though. Sddarealone (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you, and from now on, I shall exactly state the content removed and reason. I will perform cleanup actions henceforth. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I have completed creating the sandbox, but what is the next step?

I assume that I am currently waiting for expert review? This is my first time being involved with the wiki editing team, so I'm unsure of the process and would like to confirm. Snowman1208 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Back in the user talk page discussion, I had clarified the draft references needed a cleanup so that the exact page from where the content has been presented or influenced by can be verified. Either that or the quotes need to be really short.

Next is the space missions with their year of launch or period of activity and use of autonomous space technologies in it also needs to be mentioned as the article heavily references actual events and not just experimental concepts in space architecture theory. I was seeking expert opinion to improve the draft related to this issue.

You can refer my sandbox for the drafts and make your changes as it's much easier in visual text than sharing a diff from a common sandbox. I see you removed the quotes but more fixes can be done. The text that needs citations can be a phrase or a short sentence but it must be somewhere given in the reference. Sddarealone (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I will make changes based on your comments.

Is my understanding correct that before changing the current draft, I should move the original current draft to the previous draft? Snowman1208 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

No, that is meant to log the version history of each draft which should be unchanged so continue making a new draft. I as many other editors here would want to see the differences between the final polished draft and earlier drafts so we can clearly understand what happened without taking the written word for it. Once you finish the final draft, I will myself insert it into the main page without prompt. Rest assured the responsibility to make the draft well is up to you (as you're the creator of these drafts). Sddarealone (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. Snowman1208 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I have a question.

Actual space missions using autonomous and modular construction are still in the ground experiment phase and have not yet reached the space mission stage.

However, there are early mission examples that focus on modular structures and automated assembly (examples will be provided at the end of this reply).

Are there any problems in explaining these examples and outlining the current process leading up to ground experiments?

• Regarding modular structures: The International Space Station (ISS) is cited as an example of a modular structure.
• Regarding automated assembly: there is the ETS-VII (1997) mission. This mission conducted experiments on automated rendezvous and docking technology in space, space robotics technology, and system technology.

Snowman1208 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I found a real project I had overlooked (https://www.aureliainstitute.org/tesserae). There seem to be only a few, but I'll investigate further.

Separately, as mentioned in my previous reply, I'd like to confirm whether a configuration including examples like ISS is acceptable. Snowman1208 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

ISS is covered well in varieties section under orbital subsection so don't think that applies here. The key objective will be to cover the part about autonomous developments in space architecture which is what I'm looking for. Automated assembly e.g. looks good but I will have to see your draft for the content structure. Also since if not much space missions happened as you say then the autonomous subsection under varieties would have to be much shorter. Hope that helps. Sddarealone (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

Because the evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in outer space is limited, I tried to revise the overall structure of the text to make it shorter. It ended up being longer than originally planned, but I believe it covers a lot of ground. I would appreciate your feedback. Snowman1208 (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Snowman1208 I added your draft into the article after checking the readability and sources for the same. Further I also added one image and a video to give a demonstration for autonomous space architecture. Great work. Sddarealone (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for correcting the content and adding it to the wiki!

This is my first time editing a wiki, and I'm still getting used to it, so I truly appreciate your help. Snowman1208 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2026 (UTC)