Talk:Cargo spacecraft

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaveGod77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Modern naming of these vehicles

In this news release from July 2008, NASA describes this class of vehicles as, "uninhabited resupply cargo ships." Note they have found a "politically correct" term to replace the non-PC "unmanned". I describe these terms as "politically incorrect" rather than "sexist" because there's no need to re-open debate about whether they're sexist or not -- I assume everyone can see that in some circles at least these terms are deemed inappropriate and their use has been deprecated? (sdsds - talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sakes. What's next are we going to rename mankind to peoplekind? A women can man something, like a jet or the shuttle and a women can "man" a spacecraft too. --Craigboy (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since posting that my opinion on the issue has changed. I would support a move to a more gender neutral term.--Craigboy (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mankind is deprecated, and should be humankind which in use by NASA and other space agencies. A woman "crews" or "staffs" something.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe add comparison image

Maybe we can add a comparison image showing all the unmanned resupply crafts to scale of each other. --Craigboy (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Since no one responded I went ahead and did it. If you want any changes to be made to it than just ask here.--Craigboy (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Operate Autonomously"

I think Progress has this ability but I don't it always have and I'm not sure about the other vehicles (they may be docked remotely). And I believe that the ATV, HTV (soon the Dragon and Cygnus) are grabbed by the manipulator arm and berthed to the station. Whether or not this arm performs autonomously or remotely, I don't know.--Craigboy (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

"When HTV2 approaches the station on Jan. 27, Expedition 26 astronauts Cady Coleman, Scott Kelly and Paolo Nespoli will use the station’s robotic arm, known as “Canadarm2,” to grapple and berth it to the Earth-facing port on the Harmony...The pallet with cargo attached will be removed from HTV2’s external cargo “trunk” by Nespoli and Coleman, operating the...Canadarm2 from inside the station’s cupola. Next, Coleman and Kelly will operate Kibo’s robotic arm to accept a handoff of the pallet from Canadarm2, and then install it on the Japanese exposed facility on the end of the Kibo laboratory. Canadarm2 and the Dexterous Manipulator System, or Dextre, operated by flight controllers on the ground in Houston, will be used to remove a Flex Hose Rotary Coupler and Cargo Transport Container from the pallet and temporarily stow them on Dextre. Those items will remain on Dextre until they can be transferred to their final storage locations on External Logistics Carrier 4, which will be installed on the station’s truss during Discovery’s STS-133 mission. The crew will use the Japanese arm to remove the HTV2 external pallet from Kibo’s external facility and hand it back to Canadarm2, which will then return the pallet to HTV2’s external bay.

About three weeks after it is berthed to the Harmony module’s Earth-facing port, HTV2 will be relocated using Canadarm2 to the space-facing port on Harmony. to accommodate activities planned on the space shuttle Discovery’s mission. After Discovery and the STS-133 crew depart, HTV2 will be moved back to the Earth-facing port, which will put it in the proper location for a robotic unberthing. HTV2 is expected to spend about two months berthed to the Harmony module, and will be filled with trash before departing for a fiery re-entry over the Pacific Ocean."

"The Progress cargo craft will dock automatically to the station’s Pirs docking compartment"

"ATV2 will dock automatically to the aft port of the Zvezda service module on the end of the station’s Russian segment"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition26/resupply_feature.html --Craigboy (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, Progress, ATV and TKS all manage their dockings completely automatically, with an option for a manual docking via remote control if difficulties are encountered. Not entirely sure about Dragon or Cygnus... Colds7ream (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

When to move from "Future spacecraft" to "Current or former spacecraft"?

What should be the standard for moving a craft from Future spacecraft to Current or former spacecraft? Should it be having made a flight? Or having docked with some space station? Or what? Whatever we come up with, I suspect that the article will need some adjustment. The TKS, as far as I can tell, flew, but never docked. (it is currently in "Current or former") The Dragon has flown, twice, but of course has not (yet) docked. (it is currently in "Future"). My proposal is to use orbital flight as the dividing line to move out of "Future". What say others? N2e (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I say after they make their first cargo mission or after they've delivered some form of cargo.--Craigboy (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

TKS did make two resupply runs, both to Salyut 7 - Kosmos 1443 and Kosmos 1669. Another TKS, Kosmos 1267, also docked with a station (namely Salyut 6), but it was uncrewed at the time. Colds7ream (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Time to reconsider article scope

The current lede, as of 2011-03-22, says:

Unmanned resupply spacecraft are a special kind of robotic spacecraft that operate autonomously without a human crew, designed to support space station operation. This is different from space probes, whose missions are to conduct scientific investigations.

To date, we have limited the scope of this article to "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that are servicing space stations, or more generally, that are servicing manned spacecraft. Probably principally because those were the only "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that were in regular operation. But the technological times are a changing. While in previous years, there was only a small demonstration mission (or two?) with an unmanned spacecraft resupplying an unmanned spacecraft (see ASTRO on the Orbital Express mission in 2007), recent announcements of Space Infrastructure Servicing and ViviSat are intended to resupply multiple geostationary unmanned spacecraft on a single mission. So, what to do? Should we broaden the scope of this article to make it match the article title: "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Should we think about making two articles for the, now, two different classes of "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Something else? N2e (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd support the idea of simply expanding the scope of the current article to match the technological advances; can't really see a need for a split. Colds7ream (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this article about spacecraft servicing manned vehicles maybe we could do a split or a name change.--Craigboy (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, two folks, two opinions. I could go either way. As an interim step, might I suggest that we try to write a concise section for this article to address the unmanned/unpressurized servicing spacecraft (Orbital Express and the two planned geostationary spacecraft). Then we can all see how it looks. When it is of sufficient scope and completeness, I would have no problem if someone then breaks it out to a new article, with another for "spacecraft servicing manned vehicles", which would leave this name (Unmanned resupply spacecraft) as a super-class article to cover all types of spacecraft docking, just as space rendezvous is a particular type of technical challenge independent of what type of spacecraft must rendezvous.

If folks are okay with this approach, I'd be willing to put up a first draft on the new section. Then others could edit away. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, N2e! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Chinese

The article lists the "Shenzhou" cargo version, but some sources have said that the 8t Tiangong-I type would be converted into a cargo spacecraft for the Chinese space station (20t Tiangong-II type) 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to rename this article to Automated resupply spacecraft

Calling these craft "unmanned" is not appropriate under WP:GENDER. I am proposing this article be renamed Automated resupply spacecraft as a more gender neutral and accurate description. NASA and other companies use automated, robotic or even uncrewed to describe these craft. NASA no longer uses "manned" and calls its astronaut program the "Human Space Exploration Program". --Abebenjoe (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support a change, although I note from Section 1 above, that uninhabited is a word officially used by NASA, and uncrewed may also be a suitable substitute. It may need a bit more research to decide which is the most common term used in the space industry. Of course, once this change is made, there are many, many instances of unmanned and even manned spacecraft articles to be revisited. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I would support a move to "Uncrewed resupply spacecraft".--Craigboy (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncrewed is acceptable, though I like the sound of "automated" better.Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this move under WP:BRD, as I think further discussion is warranted before taking action. "Uncrewed" may be the politically correct term, but "Unmanned" is far more commonly used and WP:COMMONNAME was note taken into consideration. I would suggest that if a move is still wanted, it should go through WP:RM since it can hardly be considered an uncontroversial change. --W. D. Graham 20:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Politically correct" gets thrown around all too often. I don't know about more common, much less far more common: google gives 266,000 results for "uncrewed resupply" and 181,000 results for "unmanned resupply". Searching NASA.gov for "unmanned" gives 86,900 results, "uncrewed" 151,000, and that doesn't include various other forms like "uninhabited". NASA and the ESA have avoided using "manned" for years, so it seemed like a very minor change in relation to spaceflight, but perhaps too bold. AnythingCouldHappen (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

SpaceX section

There's really no reason for a third of this article to be about SpaceX and geopolitics, especially when it's not even accurate (the US does not pay the Chinese to launch anything at all). If there are no objections I'll delete the section. Anythingcouldhappen (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Automated cargo spacecraft

WP:BOLD I renamed this article for the following reasons: First of all, I realize that "uncrewed" strikes many as less tasteful than "unmanned", so I understand the objection to that term. However, "unmanned resupply spacecraft" is an arbitrary name to begin with. In fact, it's not even the most WP:COMMONNAME by a long shot: a google search for the phrase "unmanned resupply spacecraft" turns up 244,000 hits. Searching for "automated cargo spacecraft" comes back with 2,830,000 hits. MOS:GNL prefers gender-neutral language where it can be used with clarity and precision. "Automated cargo spacecraft" is clear, precise, not at all awkward, and the most common name for these vehicles. It's also arguably more precise than "unmanned", since when docked to ISS these vehicles are no longer "unmanned" (Progress (spacecraft)). I don't expect this to be a controversial name change, since "unmanned resupply spacecraft" has never been an official name, "automated cargo spacecraft" is the more common term for these vehicles by a factor of ten, and it avoids objections to the word "uncrewed" or other arguably awkward constructions, so I have gone ahead with the move. A(Ch) 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Automated cargo spacecraft. 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/20100706235054/http://www.thalesaleniaspace-issmodules.com:80/atv to http://www.thalesaleniaspace-issmodules.com/atv

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)