Jump to content

Talk:Kliper

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

European funding

[edit]

All this seems insane to me. The grim situation of space in Europe makes it impossible for them to pay the 1.8 billion which are mentioned in the article. We should put some cautionary words about that and not state as fact what is impossible. Furthermore, human spaceflight has a very low priority in Europe. I think extremely unlikely that ESA commits more than €50 to 100 millions to the project during the coming years.194.183.196.141 11:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For me, it seems that russian/european and maybe also japanese cooperation on Kliper can work. ESA could pay 100 millions € each year, as mentioned in the Observer article. We will know it for sure in December 2005. --Bricktop 11:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there will be choices to make, between exploration, human (Kliper) or robotic (Mars Rover/Pasteur) in December. My gut feeling is that priority should go to rover. Europe is not America and cannot do everything.194.183.196.141 11:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I really hope they can do both. The Mars rover programm costs also about 100-150 Millions € per year (with a 2011 launch) and without ESA it is unlikely Russia can build Kliper on its own due to lack of money. --Bricktop 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the figures in the article - they are derived from various articles and (I guess) they ultimately relate back to the article in the Guardian stating that a special EU-funded (yes, not from the ESA budget) program costing about 100 million British pound (=ca 160 million euro = 180 million dollar) for 10 years is discussed - hence the 1.8 billion figure. With regards to the "grim situation" of space (business) in Europe - I am confused, what do you mean with that? The ESA budget has risen double as fast during the last 10 years in comparison with the US. If you are concerned about the Russian Space Agency's funding - that is another question - however if we look at Russia's economic upturn (5-10% growth a year) they may well pay for the rest. Themanwithoutapast 00:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just another little note on "Europe is not America" - I hope you know that - if you led aside the amount spend by NASA for the Space Shuttle and the ISS (both extremely expensive and both not really operational) - the budget figures are practically the same. Europe: 3 billion euro ESA + about 4 billion euro national space agencies (1.4 bn CNES; 750 mn DLR;...) = 7 bn euro (=ca. 8.5 - 9 bn dollar) USA: 16 billion dollar - (7 billion for Shuttle (5 billion) and ISS (2 billion)) = 9 bn dollar. Compare the ESA-budget sections for a more detailed overview. wahrscheinlichThemanwithoutapast 00:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my numbers :). I think, ESA has the money to contribute in developing Kliper, but I doubt they really want to. Also if Kliper should be launched from Kourou, the Onega booster likely must be developed, as an Ariane 5 launch could be to oversized and to expensive. By the way, I even read somewhere, ESA's budget should grow up to 5 billion euros in 2006, but I don't know if it's correct. Do you know something about it? Now to Russia: there is now enough money in Russia, but they will not spend it for space exploration. The Russian Space Agency's budget grows very slowly, so if they will get funding for Kliper development (we should know it in July I think), it will certainly be not sufficient. This is the reason why they want to cooperate with other countries on that project.--Bricktop 01:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Didn't hear about this rise to 5 billion in budget - would be amazing, but I doubt it. With regard to Kliper and uncertainty of Europe's contribution (once again - this is more a political question, not so much an ESA management decision), I don't think that the article as it stands now suggest too much certainty about the whole matter. However, as for my part I personally believe that there will be a joined project (how much Europe will spend - we'll know in December). Last point: Russia - there is still the possibility of a policial propaganda move by Putin, in fact the Russian media liked the story of a "Russian Space Shuttle" - so at least if Europe approves funding, I doubt that Russia will back out. P.S.: Wir können auch auf deutsch kommunizieren... Themanwithoutapast 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're right, the whole Kliper cooperation is more a political thing. But there are also many unresolved technical and organizational problems with Kliper (spaceship itself, launcher and so on), so I yet remain sceptical it will fly in the next 10 years or even ever. But the chances that I'm wrong are now getting better ;-). P.S. deutsch ist natürlich einfacher für mich, damit schreibe ich mindestens 5 mal schneller :-), aber hier sollten wir englisch nutzen, damit die anderen User mitlesen können ;-). --Bricktop 01:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it IS official ESA policy to send Kliper to the Moon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4286086.stm

Money constraints may prevent it, but at least they're committed now. Perhaps ESA really does have Project Constellation type ambitions, though without such deep pockets as NASA?

That's speculation! Policy changes slowly, but it does change - who would have thought that the US would have finally decided to actually commit to a planetary programme from the viewpoint of 5 years ago? Pretty much nobody, and it will have been 50 years since Apollo when the first interplanetary spacecraft (CEV) takes to the vacuum. By the sme token, eventually the EU will want a manned space capacity - why not now? Anyway, Russia will be flying the Kliper, but since ESA will be bankrolling much of it, it will want its fair use from the investment. The article quoted even says that the Kliper will be for independent access to lunar orbit. Just because ESA has historically had no appetite for manned space missions, doesn't mean it can't (or indeed might be paying for Kliper BECAUSE it is changing its policy). What do German politicians per se have to do with it? EU is a community of 25 nations (admitting the new ones are not/yet involved), and France commits substantially more money than Germany - in the region of 30% of the ESA budget, via CNES. We nearly had the Hermes shuttle, but they couldn't fix the engineering problems in a reasonable budget, same as the US couldn't go to Mars with George Bush senior's $500Bn plan in the early nineties.....Situations change.

ESA is getting too less money for doing a full scale manned spaceflight or even flight to the Moon. And for a Moon flight much hardware, proving investments many billions of euros high, must be bild: heavy launcher, launch infrastructure, moon lander, preparing Kliper for a moon mission (mission module, stronger landing capsule and stronger heat shield for getting into earth atmosphere with a higher velocity) and other things (e.g. space suits). Where this money should be coming from? Europe is talking much, but paying only little money for its space program. --Bricktop 10:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I too think that the costs of getting Kliper to the moon would be huge - but we have to assume that if ESA is talking about it, they have at least thought of this. At any rate, If the head of ESA's Human Spaceflight Development Programme says it's going to the moon, that's good enough for me, however likely or unlikely I personally feel it is. I'm just publishing what they've announced.

And as Malaysia announced to want to land man on moon, was it also enough for you to believe them ;-)? I'm only confident in such "announcings" when they are backed up with enough money (and also technology development level, as in case of China). So for me it is now likely that after 2020 USA will indeed land man on moon and Russia will sometimes after many years of development finally launch Kliper, with or without Europe's money. And ESA's Aurora program will maybe lead to an unmanned Mars Sample Return mission in 2020s, presumably in cooperation with NASA. --Bricktop 19:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cynicism really has no place here. In answer to your comment, If Malaysia announced plans for a lunar mission, I'd still report it. I'd comment on the likely probability of it, cite the sources where it came from, and discuss how it was meant to be fulfilled. It really is irrelevant what we feel about an article, as long as we report factually accurate information that is not misleading, yes? It is a fact that, based upon Thirkettle's comment, ESA intends to use Kliper for circumlunar missions. That's it, period. We know nothing about launchers they plan to use or not use, what funds they are allocating, or even how likely it is. The simple provenance of the source is good enough for me, which is not to say that is guaranteed to be true, as things change. Wondering how they'll fund it, what they'll launch it with or what missions they'll do is indeed pointless without evidence. We have an ESA top-man saying that Kliper will be used for independent circumlunar access. We have more information about this than we even have about the Onega rocket, and that's supposed to be the launcher for goodness sake - nobody disputes that because it's boring, but reliably reported. As unlikely as it might be, if the same director said 'we plan to launch Kliper with a Saturn 5', I'd laugh my ass off, but still report that he said it nonetheless.

No I didn't meant it this way. Of course we should also report about Malaysia's or India's claims. But we should commment it as good and as NPOV as we can, for example saying that by now Malaysia doesn't even have its own launch system. In case of ESA they're talking about using Kliper though the decision to fund its development won't be made until at earliest December 2005 (and then for a two years paper study). And this decision will NOT be made by ESA! So how can an ESA official (even a high one) know something about future use of Kliper by now? P.S. we know pretty much about Onega rocket, even more as about new american SDLV launchers. What especially do you want to know about Onega? --Bricktop 21:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Thirkettle will happily retire in a couple of years, and as far as I am concerned he might as well announce a human flight to Triton. The price tag the Moon mission is 100 billion USD according to Mike Griffin (and probably an optimistic figure), which is 30 years of ESA budget. Or 100 years of ESA Human Spaceflight budget if it was continuing at present level. So please stop this nonsense. Human spaceflight will be over in Europe when the ISS is deorbited. Full stop.
Regarding Germany and France, they make up more than 60% of ESA budget so yes they have a say. Neither DLR nor CNES wants to hear about human spaceflight, my colleagues at EADS dont even DARE talk about human spaceflight to DLR. So be happy if ESA manages to put Exomars on the surface of Mars and stop space cadet dreams. Or ask for a Green Card. Hektor 02:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now it seems the Japs want in on the action too! Manwithnoname 16:51, 15 October 2005 (GMT)

I hope this won't do anything bad to the whole project regarding Japan's "successes" in space exploration :-). --Bricktop 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think you hit the nail on the head. The Japanese make many superb space technologies....but launchers are not one of them! As much as we may mock the Russians for using archaic technology, their successful record of launches is far better than even the United States. Kliper is more likely to be a success if each participant plays to their strengths (and finances). The Russians aren't stupid - they know this. By opening the project up to other nations, they cut their costs, add technical richness to Kliper, and improve their chances of success. Now then, if they were to invite China to participate, and it agreed......well, then it REALLY might be Kliper to the moon first ;-) Manwithnoname 16:19, 16 October 2005 (GMT)

Launcher

[edit]

I thought the reference launcher was Zenit, since it is human rated (booster of Energia).

Apparently no more, as Zenit is a half-ukrainian rocket.--Bricktop 11:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Energia rocket

[edit]

I'm just wondering, why are you talking about Energia rocket in this article? It has NOTHING to do with Kliper. Nobody wants to launch Kliper towards Moon or Mars, its only purpose is to fly to LEO. Its launch mass is around 15 tons and it will be most probably launched by an Onega rocket (or similar Soyuz-3 rocket). And even if Kliper should sometime fly to the Moon, two separate Onega or Proton rockets would be enough to launch Kliper and a propulsion module, the same way as planned for CEV moon missions (without landing on the Moon!). Energia will never fly again, there are no facilities anymore for building this rockets parts in Russia. --Bricktop 22:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fine but if it is only oing to LEO... where is it going, the ISS will no longer be there soon.
Why should the ISS going not to be there any more? Griffin wants to keep the station there, russians and europeans too. --Bricktop 23:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculations

[edit]

Half of this article are rumours and speculations. I think this is not the purpose of an Wikipedia article, rather of discussion forums. We should only write known facts down and not speculate whether Clipper may or may not affect CEV development or Aurora program or Energia rocket or aliens or whatever else. --Bricktop 12:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - however there is one particularly important part of this article it omits! In the preamble of the article, it states that Kliper is going to be used as a core element of future Moon/Mars missions, and this is TOTAL conjecture! I agree that this is a possibility, but it's not even a decent rumour yet, and certainly not worthy of it being stated as fact. Kliper is nowhere near the CEV's rival - yet. I tried to edit the bit at the article's beginning, but it has been edited back. Can we please stop stating Kliper is a Moon/Mars ship when this is unconfirmed?

Tried to correct it. --Bricktop 22:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's back again ;)

  • I am sorry that the space related articles are a part of wikipedia which is not as factual as the rest of the articles due to a bunch of space cadets who use half-understood press articles and interpret them in the most optimistic way in order to provide support to their own fantasies. Articles like this one and Hopper are a good example of this trend.Hektor 18:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should clean up this article a bit. I would for example also remove such parts like this: If funding for the project is approved by the Europeans, it is likely that Kliper will make its first launch as early as 2010 or 2011 – the same time the Space Shuttle is scheduled to be retired. Crucially, this will give the combined Russian-European effort several years with a manned launching ability in space, while America will have none. This may or may not confer a technical or developmental 'edge' on the European-Russian programme, particularly if ESA's Aurora Programme is in any way to be likened to President Bush's Moon-to-Mars vision, Project Constellation. It is likely that Kliper would expedite US development of the CEV if it seemed that such an edge was being acquired.. --Bricktop 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, remove the bit about Kliper making the US develop the CEV faster, but keep the rest. It is factually true and relevant that Kliper will afford Russia (and yes, maybe ESA too)a few years in space when there is no US means of transportation for doing same, IF it flies on schedule. If Kliper flies for 3 years before the CEV, that's a lot of flight experience under their belts that does them credit, particularly as Russia made far more launches of this type than the US, even when the shuttle was flying. The CEV is explicitly part of Project Constellation, and there will be news on Kliper's status in December in relation to Aurora, but it seems logical and not far-fetched to think that the the European interest to date in Kliper has a direct bearing on Aurora. Simply put, Aurora is logically much more do-able with Kliper, ergo the interst to date. Russia has openly talked of sending Kliper to the ISS, like the CEV. Why would Russia want or need to design Kliper, and then talk about ISS missions (when they already have Soyuz), unless there is another, greater purpose for Kliper?

You are not really up to date: Griffin plans first manned CEV launch in the 2011-2012 timeframe. There are many reasons for Russia to build Kliper, one of the main reasons is that Soyuz capsules are getting harder to build because of their very old technology, so there are for example no more facilities that can build such old components like analog computer parts and so on. Another reason is: Russians may think they can get some money flying tourists into space and Kliper can take 4 of them instead of only one in a soyuz capsule. But Moon or Mars missions aren't (today!) on the reasons list. That may change with time, but we should first write about it when it's officially announced or is close to this. And forget Aurora, compare their budget and NASA's moon programm budget ;-). --Bricktop 21:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. Aurora is a fantasy program. And if ESA is ok to use European taxpayer's money for a touristic vehicle for US millionaires, good for them and good luck. :))) Hektor 15:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, only one of the space tourists (Dennis Tito) has been US, the other two (Mark Shuttleworth and Toyohiro Akiyama) were from other countries (South Africa and Japan). - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You forget Gregory Olsen. Akiyama was borderline tourist, since he didn't pay for his ticket himself.Hektor 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I haven't forgotten him. He has not flown to space yet. There have been plenty of people who have announced plans to fly that didn't, so as of now, 33% of space tourists have been from the US. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We are 48 hours from his flight. You think he is going to drop out now ?Hektor 13:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I give up editing this article :-(. Some ESA officials told BBC about some of their moon mission dreams and our IP-man thinks these are already official plans :-(. And what has Cliper to do with moon landings? It can not land on Moon. --Bricktop 16:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • ESA officials are creating as much hype about Kliper as they can, not that they believe in it as a Moon vehicle - they are not that naive - but to get as much money for Kliper as they can at the 2005 Ministerial Conference. This money will be used for a pure paper Phase A type study which will be a kind of survival mode for their civil servants in ESTEC and elsewhere. This paper will go inside ESA lockers with the Hermes files, the CTV, the CRV. the X-38... My best bet right now is that they will get 20 million euros over two years till 2008 from the Ministers.Hektor 19:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 'Future launchers' section

[edit]

I'd like to remove the entire Future Launchers section, it is 100% speculation with no basis in any published intentions by the russians. If nobody can cite any announcement of using Kliper to visit the moon or whatnot, or any reference to ressurecting Energia, then I think we should remove it, but I want to gauge consensus first. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there are no officially announced plans for using Kliper beyond Earth orbit. There is a manned Mars mission concept from RKK Energia [1], which use a Kliper-derived vehicle for crew transfers, but these are only conceptual studies. And I think, they even don't consider talking about launchers for this project. So go on with deletion of the 'Future launchers' section. --Bricktop 17:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. If anyone wants to add it back, let's please talk about it here first. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't entirely rule out Kliper for missions beyond Earth. See this link:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/19/content_3378611.htm

It cites Roskosmos (probably in a typically Russian humorous way) suggesting that Yang Liwei could ride to the Moon aboard Kliper. A joke, or a suggestion of future uses?

Interesting, but not enough to warrant the section. Definately a subject worth watching, if the RSA or anyone else official says anything else more concrete, then we should revisit this. Your thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one problem: There is no money in Russia behind these talks, at least for the next couple of years. --Bricktop 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the next couple of decades.Hektor 05:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technical specifications

[edit]

I can read Cyrillic and this photo says that Clipper/Клипер will use a Zenit rocket as its launcher. It was written before the ESA agreement, I have no doubt it would use an Ariane 5, since it has been designed for spacecrafts and only Soyuz launch vehicles and Vega will boost satellites to LEO or GTO.

Carnby 84.222.53.189 10:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather old picture of an unwinged configuration. Don't think that Ariane 5 will be used as a Kliper launcher, because this rocket is too large and also expensive comparing to russian Onega/Soyuz-3 launcher, which can also be launched from Kourou. --Bricktop 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This picture was shown by Russians to ESA delegation some months ago. --Bricktop 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an "enhanced" Ariane 5 would be useful for a Clipper Moon mission, if the Angara would not be developed (considering the financial status of Russian space activities). The Angara would replace the Zenit rocket, "officially" an Ukrainian product, but engineered in the Soviet Union and now marketed by Boeing on their Sea Launch ocean floating pad.Carnby 84.222.53.6 19:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other Russian proposed spaceplanes

[edit]

This guy, Australian with a clearly Polish name (Krzys Kotwicki) has designed a site called "Energia" where he's dreaming of a future use of the dismantled Energia rocket for American (!!) missions to Mars (the image of an Energia Vulkan rocket (featuring its name in Cyrillic) carrying an American spaceship is one of the most bizarre things I've ever found on the Net!). Nevertheless, his site is often cited for references in the English Wikipedia.

Surfing the Net, I've found two another proposed Russian spaceplanes, the "cosmoplane" and the MAKS spaceship (not to be confused with the MAKS air exibition). Do you think they should be cited as "proposed spaceplanes" in Wikipedia? Carnby 84.222.53.6 19:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think MAKS should get an own article, because its development has gone pretty far. --Bricktop 01:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like a banana

[edit]

"Designed to successfully split apart either circumferentially just below the reentry module in such an emergency or longitudinally like a banana were the flight successful." To me, this phrase is just awful. Words like circumferentially and longitudinally are OK (even though my English is not very good and I have had to consult the dicstionary). But longitudinally like a banana... I've tried to imagine the spacecraft doing something longitudinally, like a banana... and failed. :) --Targi 09:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz or Kliper

[edit]

This article seems to indicate that Soyuz will be used for Moon exploration, rather than Kliper, at least for a first phase. 149.243.232.3 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead ?

[edit]

Bye, bye, Kliper

[edit]

Due to a lack of funds we can be assured of another fifty years of Soyuz derivatives (at best). Thank you, ESA! Adelphos

Discover magazine

[edit]

FWIW, the current (August) issue of Discover magazine has a nice feature on Kliper, including a well-done cutaway illustration. Of course, it hit the streets before the cancellation notice. Akradecki 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cancelled ?

[edit]

I believe the "Flight International" (your source 1) have misunterstud something. I was not able to find full press-reliese of what Anatoly Perminov (FSA director-general)had told on Farnborough air show but e.g Rosprom,Rambler like many other russian sources quote Anatoly Perminov ".. after consultation with our europian partners , wich expresed their wishes, we decided to stop the tender ,because the terms and conditions on the tender have radically changend, see him as never happen. We decided to give the coordination of the project(from the russian side) to RKK Energia." The President of RKK Energia Nikolai Sewostjanow told on Farnborough air show that he believes that the ESA requirements would not led to big changes on Kliper. The tests of Kliper should be finished on 2012, and on 2015 there should be 5 Kliper vehickles (for six passangers each). It will be used together with Parom.

is it cancelled or isn't it?

[edit]

I'm seriously confused about all this. Kliper is listed as a cancelled program in the Russian space program infobox at the bottom of the page yet Energia and this article still mention that the Kliper program is continuing. Could someone please explain this to me!Boyinabox 23:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kliper as the next generation space-craft for the Russian Space Agency was cancelled - the Russian government and space agency will not use either of the proposals put forward by 3 contracts that have submitted bids. Energia, a Russian contractor that has submitted a proposal, however announced that it tries to develop its Kliper proposal without money from the Russian government - that through private investors. That said, while it is extremely unlikely that they will actually get the money from somebody to do so, the development of at least Energia's Kliper proposal is not dead. Themanwithoutapast 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2010 is here, and yes it is canceled. --Craigboy (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond LEO

[edit]

I removed:

It has also been declared that it could be used as the crew vehicle for trans-lunar missions and may at least theoretically be used for Martian exploration.

under the terms of WP:V. It needs to be referenced before being replaced. Dan100 (Talk) 08:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "flightglobal" :
    • [http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/07/18/Navigation/200/207935/Farnborough+Russia's+Federal+Space+Agency+cancels+manned+spacecraft.html www.flightglobal.com]
    • [http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2006/02/14/Navigation/177/204620/Kliper+choice+delayed.html Flight International: Kliper choice delayed (retrieved Dec 27, 2006)]

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article *or* English Translation

[edit]

Hi - the name of the article is Kliper, but the very first sentence says that the English name is "Clipper". If the English name of the thing is "Clipper", then the article should be "Clipper_(spacecraft)", or something like that. On the other hand, maybe most English sources *do* call it "Kliper". If that's the case, then someone should change the first sentence. AshleyMorton (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Kliper isn't native Russian word. I prefer the name Clipper.Юе Артеміс (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kliper. 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) 10:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kliper. 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) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kliper. 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) 01:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kliper&oldid=1216506810"