Talk:Soyuz launch vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: High

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Under a proposal to clean up inconsistent disambiguation of rocket article titles, this article, Soyuz launch vehicle, may be moved to Soyuz rocket or Soyuz (rocket).
At this stage, it is only a proposal at an early stage of discussion, but you are encouraged to contribute to the discussion, which is located here.


Contents

[edit] Talk

Would it not be appropriate to include some bulleted statistics about the soyuz launch vehicle? I think mass lifting capacity, cost per launch, and perhaps numbers of launches and failures are somewhat neccesary for an article on this subject. -lommer 20:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please, go ahead and put them in. No need to ask. :-)

[edit] Soyuz engines

Imho the recent added engines names aren't right (don't know about the other data), look at this site. --Bricktop 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • They came straight out of Iaskowitz, which is the source of record for launch industry professionals (though, it has been known to have errors). Unless I typoed or misread something. I don't have the launch customer users guide for Soyuz to doublecheck at the original source, though I may be able to get it. If you can crosscheck with Astronautix and see what you think I goofed on more specifically, let me know. Georgewilliamherbert 07:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
You can get Soyuz user guides at Arianespace. Or look at this official launch press kit (PDF) from the Russian Space Agency, you get also additional info about Aurora and Onega LVs there. Their engines names are: Soyuz - RD-107, RD-108, RD-0110; Soyuz-U - RD-117, RD-118, RD-0110; Soyuz-FG - RD-107A, RD-108A, RD-0110; Soyuz-2-1a - RD-107A, RD-108A, RD-0110; Soyuz-2-1b - RD-107A, RD-108A, RD-0114. --Bricktop 08:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
FYI I am not ignoring your suggestions (I downloaded the guide on Aug 22 when you posted the above) but have gotten really, really busy and haven't had a chance to analyze and correct in detail. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I would change it for myself, but I don't have the detailed specs for the stages of different Soyuz versions to compare with your data in the article and right now also don't have the time to search after this data. --Bricktop 10:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Soyuz rocket per se - there is Soyuz-U rocket, Soyuz-U2 rocket (that using syntine, not flying now), Soyuz-FG rocket (manned flights of today), Soyuz-2 (several varants) and Molniya. Additionally, there were some other R-7 derivatives - Vostok, Luna, Sputnik... Avmich 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soyuz Launch Costs and Statistics

The article doesn't mention the actual cost of Soyuz launches, other than saying they are relatively "inexpensive". Also statistics on the number of successful and failed launches would give a better indication of Suyoz's reliability. Will try to find these facts out but if I'm not succesful could someone plz fill them in? --subzero788 15:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Launch costs are commercial secret, that's why not exactly known. It is beleaved that a Soyuz-U/FG is selled to russian government for about 15-20 M$, Soyuz/Fregat for a commercial launch costs even more - about 35-40 M$. But these numbers are only estimates. For a launch statistic go there and there. --Bricktop 09:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Units for Specific Impulse

Gene, you do not have consensus on Wikipedia to use kgf*s/kg to replace Seconds in measuring specific impulse. I know seconds infuriate you, but I also know that you find 10x as many references in Sec than kgf*s/kg. Please accept that the industry uses Seconds; not exclusively, but predominantly, and that's the way it is. This debate has floated around several pages including Specific impulse and you are not convincing anyone. Please accept the consensus. Please put Soyuz launch vehicle's units back the way you found them. Thank you. The other edits you did were clearly positive and I appreciate you making those. Georgewilliamherbert 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe seconds are used in some places, meters per seconds in others. In my opinion, authors should tend to use original manufacturer units, or units mostly used in the industry in particular country. Here the case appear to be different than English units in US rocket hardware, vs. SI units in Europe.

Oh, and I don't think 10x times more frequent use of seconds (if it's true) is relevant here. Avmich 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the convention is that you should use the manufacturers original units. Failing to use their original units is incorrect as conversions often affect accuracy.
It's then a good idea to add a conversion to seconds (if it isn't already). It's not wrong to add m/s or kg.m/s as well, but generally I think seconds is the most widely understood form, the second is an SI unit ;-) WolfKeeper 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Wait on WP:ICBM. Besides, the proposed move is unobstructed so it doesn't really need WP:RM. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

  1. Soyuz is Russian, and in Russia the term "Launch Vehicle" is not used
  2. The titling of all rocket articles is a mess, but (rocket) appears to be the most common version
  3. A proposed Naming convention would support this
    … Please share your opinion at Talk:Soyuz launch vehicle. —GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Nominate and Support --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Infobox rocket

Why no use of *Infobox rocket* in Soviet rocket articles? JDG 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be the only person using this template (Template:Infobox rocket (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) at the moment, and I just haven't got round to it yet. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly didn't mean to rush you. I myself am losing in my bid to use more energy per day than my small desk lamp here (100 watt bulb but almost always dimmed to at most 40 watts)... I guess you noticed that the "country" param isn't used on many of the U.S rockets, leading to a blank "Country of origin" in the display. JDG 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)