Talk:Soyuz (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Archive 1

L1

• Should the "L1 Soyuz" concept be in here, see Mir Hardware Heritage. Chris H 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of modules

• A Soyuz spacecraft in its crew transfer version consists of five modules. There are three pressurized modules: the Habitable Module, the Descent Module, and the Instrument Module. There are two unpressurized modules: the Adapter Module, and the Assembly Module. The article should be corrected to reflect this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.207.139 (talk • contribs)

• Then do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeE (talk • contribs)

Of course it would be great to cite a source for this! (Sdsds - Talk) 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Versions

I'm adding infoboxes for several Soyuz versions, as a first step in moving that information into separate articles. Not a very nice layout right now, but keeps all info in one place. Ricnun 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, created pages for all the different versions, and moved most of the images and data there. Let's see how this works over time. Ricnun 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Soyuz LK-XX subsections

it is unclear to me the differences and relationships between the different LK-XX spacecraft.. but it strikes me that instead of having a different subsection for each one, the reader would benefit more from have a couple of paragraphs outlining the differences, and developments. i'll take a crack at this, but i might get something wrong. Mlm42 10:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Deeper meaning of name

I reverted this edit, which was made with the comment, "Deeper meaning to 'Soyuz' in relation to Soviet nationalism". I would like to have this content be part of Wikipedia, but I was concerned that it was not properly sourced and may not have been NPOV. Also, the soyuz programme article might be a better place for discussion of the meaning of the name. (sdsds - talk) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dimensions

Says diameter is 13.61 ft/2.72 m and height 57.44 ft/7.48 m . Isn't a meter just over 3 feet?69.95.76.15 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

57.44 feet = 17.507712 meters. Maybe someone lost the leading "1"? (sdsds - talk) 04:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Volume = 254.27 sq ft (23.622 m2)" doesn't make much sense as m² is a measure for area. also the conversion sq ft - m² is off by a factor near 10, so apparently someone forgot the last digit of the sq ft-number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.192.251.21 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Solid fuel braking

"At one meter above the ground, solid-fuel braking engines mounted behind the heat shield are fired to give a soft landing."

Is it just me or does the braking engines firing at just above 3 feet off the ground seem a tad low?? JamieHughes (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One meter is correct. This breaking is the direct equivalent of the "splash down" which American capsules used. It just takes the edge off of the final impact. Like an airbag deploying in a car. NeilFraser (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Preformance

This article lacks one of most important statistic for any spacecraft: how much was flown and how much succesfully. I know about two flights that ended in LOC, but how much was flown in general?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcio (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the most successful/safest/most reliable spacecraft in history, judging from number of mission to number of problems arising from those missions.

It may be now, it was a deathtrap. Poor Komarov. All the problems they had with the unmanned test flights and yet they still sent him up.--172.190.50.66 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"the Soyuz has an unusual sequence of events prior to re-entry."

Really? The one spacecraft type that has outlived all other spacecraft types in terms of service duration does something 'unusual'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Cosmonaut height accommodation

This article says:

Soyuz TMA (A: антропометрический, Antropometricheskii meaning anthropometric) features several changes to accommodate requirements requested by NASA in order to service the International Space Station, including more latitude in the height and weight of the crew and improved parachute systems.

I think this section should state the approximate maximum cosmonaut height of the Soyuz TM and the Soyuz TMA. Neutrino1200 (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reentry or Descent - Terminology Consistency

Reentry Module and Descent Module seem to be used interchangeably throughout the text. Which is the correct term that should then be used consistently throughout the article? CliffVHarris (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As a data point, currently the NASA web page discussing the Soyuz module uses the Descent Module term (capitalized) exclusively. Damienjr (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to Apollo: synthesis, OR

From the Design section:

By moving as much equipment as possible into the orbital module, which does not have to be shielded or decelerated during atmospheric re-entry, the Soyuz is both larger and lighter than the contemporary Apollo Command Module. The Apollo had 6.2 cubic meters (220 cu ft) of living space and a mass of 5,000 kilograms (11,000 lb); the three-part Soyuz (command, orbital and service modules) provides the same crew (since the Soyuz T in 1980) with more than 7 cubic meters (250 cu ft) of living space (5 cubic meters (180 cu ft) in OM, plus 2.5 cubic metres (88 cu ft) in RM), an airlock, and a service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone (mass of empty Soyuz was 5,600 kilograms (12,300 lb)). On the other hand Apollo was operating with three astronauts in spacesuits and was able to land with five astronauts in spacesuits in 1973 (prepared rescue mission for second Skylab crew), Soyuz was for two cosmonauts in spacesuits in the 1960s and 1970s, and for three since 1980 (Soyuz T). On nine Apollo missions (9 through 17) the astronauts also had access to the Lunar Module, which added 6.7 cubic meters (240 cu ft) but also another 2,200 kilograms (4,900 lb) of mass (if counting just the empty ascent stage as being somewhat equivalent to the Soyuz orbital module, although including empty fuel tanks, engine and RCS system — 14,700 kilograms (32,400 lb) when including the descent stage and fuel).

(I inserted convert templates to get English units to make comprehension and verifiability easier for US users.) This has been here a long time, and not a citation in sight. And there just sounds like wild speculation about the Lunar Module. The guidelines say we're not just supposed to lump facts together to make conclusions. And the purpose of the article is to present information about the Soyuz, not to bash Apollo. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

4throck (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Yes, that part of the article is a summary of Soyuz, so no Apollo talk. Any comparison should be to earlier Soviet spacecraft, not with Apollo. Really Apollo vs Soyuz deserves it' own section, but further down the article.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Soyuz (spacecraft)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*As of 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC) this article cites no references! Sdsds

Last edited at 01:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 06:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Soyuz MS

Isn't the new TsVM-101 already used within the Soyuz TMA-Series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.22.24.219 (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I've written an article for the Soyuz MS. It does bothers me by I haven't found a definitive answer. I do remember that the Soyuz has a small avionics computer in the descent module for the last phase or the return, and that had not been modified for the TMA-M. The original plan was to move everything to the Descent module so it could be reusable. May be they did it this time around? I believe we will find out in the next few weeks, probably out of Anatoly Zak's site.Baldusi (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive amount of detail template

@Timothy Robinson12345: I just noticed your template. I'm not one of the people who wrote this article, just a visitor who is keen on spaceflight, writing an article which mentions the Soyuz, who came here looking for information about the Soyuz rocket. To me, it doesn't seem excessive at all. The Soyuz is one of the most important rockets in the world. It's currently the only rocket that sends humans into space and it's also the main rocket used for supplies to the ISS and it's been around since the start of the space race so historically it's one of the most important rockets there is. So with that background, this page seems rather short if anything. I'd like to see a bit more detail. Does that answer you? I think the template should be removed myself. Robert Walker (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That user was blocked as a sock puppet. Because of this, and there being no apparent good reason for the tag, I have removed it. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Soyuz MS-10 Abort

The Soyuz MS-10 abort has brought to light information that the the launch abort system (SAS) has two components, the escape tower with one engine and a shroud with four. Because the abort occured after tower jettison but before the shroud separated there was some confusion as to whether the launch abort system fired. It did, but since the tower was already gone the shroud alone pulled the crew away from the rocket. If more detail about the SAS can be sourced with citations it should be used to amend the relevant sections as well as the MS-10 page which simply states the capsule returned to Earth in a ballistic trajectory. RMoribayashi (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

"The only means for manned space flights in the world"?

How can the article make this claim for Soyuz when Shenzhou is also in service? 2600:1:C304:C2F2:B396:3119:4797:65AD (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not in service, it is undergoing testing, as are all other proposed manned space flight systems currently.

I note the IP address has been blocked, I suggest removal of this dumb comment (and my reply) as cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.140.227 (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)