Talk:Soyuz-2

Ikar confusion

The article leaves me confused about the optional Ikar stage. The infobox currently reads in part: "Third Stage (Optional) - Ikar ... Thrust 2.94 kN (66,093 LBf)" Maybe the kN or the LBf is off by a factor of 10. But which? Sdsds 04:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be 294 kN. I've changed it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly shouldn't be 294kN, that's more thrust than a Centaur. The sneaky f'ing russian forum that I googled suggests 2943N / 662 lbf. But perhaps someone could find a more reliable official source.--211.30.213.51 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Soyuz-FG vs Soyuz 2

The Soyuz FG is a version of the Soyuz-2 rocket (they are all derived from the Soyuz-U). There is not really enough difference to have a seperate article for it, so I am suggesting that the Soyuz FG article is merged into this one. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello,GW_Simulations! I work for RSC Energia, and I think that I know better what our partners in TsSKB-Progress (ЦСКБ-Прогресс) produce. Yes, Soyuz-FG is not completely Soyuz-U, but its only difference is more powerful 1ST STAGE. Soyuz-2 is almost totally a new project. Its principal difference is DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM, which they develop in partnership with us - we are developing a digitally-controlled version of Soyuz-TMA. Besides, Soyuz-2 has new 2ND STAGE and new BOOSTERS. Finally, I should say, that development of Soyuz-FG began by Soviet Union in 1987, while Soyuz-2 project appeared in 2000, when it became clear that everything analog should become digital. Now about Soyuz-ST. LV with such name has not yet flown - it is a modification of Soyuz-2, which will be launched from Guiana Space Center, and now Starsem uses Soyuz-FG/Fregat LV at Baikonur. Therefore, I created a normal Soyuz-FG page and suggest that you should redo Soyuz-2 page, leaving information here only about Soyuz-2.1a, Soyuz-2.1b and future LV Soyuz-ST in order not to mislead people. Best regards! Darussalam

RADARSAT-2

Media reports indicate RADARSAT-2 was launched by a Soyuz FG, not by a Soyuz 2. Assuming these are different types of rockets, can we safely remove the reference to RADARSAT-2 from this article? (sdsds - talk) 08:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that can go. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was withdrawn to allow discussion on the issue of rocket article disambiguation in general, not just specific cases. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soyuz 2 rocket → Soyuz-2 — Seems to be more common to include the hyphen than not to do so. The hyphen also provides disambiguation from Soyuz 2, eliminating the need for a further disambiguator. Target currently redirects to source article. —GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose the Soyuz rocket is at Soyuz launch vehicle. This should be named to match - Soyuz-2 launch vehicle family (or without family). 70.55.85.225 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Are IPs allowed to vote? Regardless, why should it? The majority of Soyuz rocket articles are not - Soyuz-FG, Soyuz-U for example. Seeing as the article is in British English, the title should not be in American English. There is no need to add additional disambiguation. The Soyuz article has pretty non-standard disambiguation anyway, and I am considering proposing that it be moved to Soyuz rocket. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn - per your post, this is clearly part of a much larger issue. I am withdrawing the RM nomination in order to persue a wider discussion of the whole issue of disambiguation in rocketry articles. I have made a standardisation proposal here --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GRAU Index

Is the GRAU Index of 14A14 actually correct? The GRAU Index page indicates no 14A, but a similar 11A designation. Shouldn't it be something like 11A14? --62.224.255.77 (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Variants

I put back detailed description of variants. I understand that in present form it mostly duplicates information that is already in the intro, so this should be sorted out. Still, because the article uses 2.1a and 2.1b names, they must be described.

Also, fairing types should be described.Mikus (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Partial Failure

It would be nice to have some information about what caused the partial failure of the one launch. What was the result, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.221.153 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Meridian Failure

Looking at the source on the launch that is listed as a failure, it seems that it was the satellite that failed, *not* the launcher, thus it should be listed as a success for Soyuz-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.118.88.25 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• That's Meridian 1. The launch failure was Meridian 2. --GW… 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken Links

The link to the BLITS satellite payload is incorrect, it takes you to an unrelated page about sound. A page containing information on the BLITS payload doesn't seem to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.k.dub (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Failures

I've noticed a disagreement between WatcherZero (talk · contribs) and Galactic Penguin SST (talk · contribs) over the number of failures and partial failures the Soyuz-2 has had. I'm not sure which launch is at issue, but the three anomalous launches I am aware of are:

• Meridian 2: Failure - Underperformed, initially declared as a partial failure as Russia hoped to recover satellite; this was subsequently abandoned.
• Meridian 5: Failure - Failed to orbit
• Galileo: TBD - Wrong orbit, remains to be seen whether the satellites are recoverable (partial failure) or not (failure).

I hope this helps matters. --W. D. Graham 18:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure about Meridian 2? I'm unaware of a source that it has been abandoned. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was reported around the time of the Meridian 3 launch. I'll try and dig up a source tonight. --W. D. Graham 05:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Define "recoverable" - satellites respond just fine, only are placed on an incorrect orbit. Returning them to the correct orbits won't be possible, satellites don't have enough fuel for that, however they still might be used for hardware testing (ESA/CNES/OHB teams are still studying possible scenarios). From what I seen so far consensus seems to be that it is a partial failure. SkywalkerPL (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The key word there is might. We don't currently know if they will be usable or not - if they are then yes, it is a partial failure. If, however, they will never be usable for anything beyond testing then there is nothing partial about it. We need to wait and see whether they can be put into service or not but if the payload does prove unservicable then that is a complete failure. --W. D. Graham 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say here is that satellites will not return to their intended orbit, so they won't be used in a Galileo system as originally designed to, however they might be used for a different purpose. Hence my doubt if this qualifies as a partial failure or not. We're still waiting for an official announcement, so it's pretty much impossible to determine anything until then anyway. I'll try to keep Soyuz flight VS09 up to date. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In other rocket articles, it's only considered a partial failure if the payload can be used for its original mission, or if it can be re-purposed in a significant way. Most of the "partial failures" listed here (like the Progress failure, the failure of which was traced to the upper stage, not the Progress itself) are in fact total failures. Saying anything else is just an attempt at PR, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Note that if the payload fails, not the rocket, then it is, of course, still a successful launch.)— Gopher65_talk 14:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is the common denotation that people who count these statistics follows - the system that I followed assumes that any launch that does put something into an Earth orbit is at most a "partial failure", just like User:WDGraham and this and this source does (with some variations). So....... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ive never really understood the argument that if its up its successful even if its in the wrong place and unusable for its intended purpose as essentially the mission objective has failed and a replacement will have to be built and launched. You wouldn't call a cargo ship that crossed the Atlantic then sank in port before its cargo could be unloaded a partial success as the cargo has not been delivered where its supposed to go. WatcherZero (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Think about it this way: the recent SpaceX launch that failed could be considered a partial success. After all, the Dragon was simply placed in an incorrect orbit. This is literally true. The orbit in question eventually intersected with the ground (ocean actually), but still:P. Engines fired, and the first stage performed above expectations in a difficult situation. Strangely, NASA's ridiculous contracts actually consider it a mostly successful mission... except for the last bit with the exploding rocket. Same with Orbital's recent Kerbaling of their rocket. If it lifts off, it's at least a partial success in their books, even if it fails in under 15 seconds like Antares did:P. But just because NASA has stuuuupid rules doesn't mean we should let SpaceX off the hook. The mission failed, period. Ditto with these failed Proton missions.

You can always come up with some paperwork excuse, "97% of the mission's objectives were met!" Technically true, but irrelevant. All that matters is payload delivery. If I order something from Amazon and they fail to deliver it to me, I don't consider the order a "partial success" or "partial failure" due to the fact that the ordering process went down without a hitch. Failure to deliver == mission failure. — Gopher65_talk 03:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that this discussion should be moved to the main Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight page, since any changes in this definition would affect every single rocket related page on Wiki. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that's just it. I've read many of the rocketry related articles on Wikipedia, and this is the only one I've seen that doesn't conform to the definition of failure I used above. — Gopher65_talk 13:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.....this is strange, as I am pretty sure that I and others use the same standard as on other pages (and if you have checked the edit histories of the pages of other rockets, you should see my name multiple times. ;)).

- The Galileo one is evidently only a partial failure even by your standards since ESA should be putting the satellites into operation soon, though not in the original place.

- I have not seen any evidence that Meridian 2 was abandoned, and given its outcome orbit.....it could only be a partial failure.

Which leaves the Progress accident. I admit that this one was a marginal case and I put in the outcome before the investigation ended. I need some time to think about this one since "rocket injected payload into correct orbit but damaged the payload to unusable state" is a rare case in spaceflight history.

So, is there anything else that you think I deviated from other pages' standards? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I was mostly concerned with the Progress one, because I know almost nothing about the Meridian 2 sat, and I agree that the Galileo one should be a partial failure/success. — Gopher65_talk 03:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am boldly marking the Progress launch as a total failure. The rocket shook the payload to death and the mission failed. Greg (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Missing flight

Progress MS-3 is missing in the list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.127.219 (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Progress MS-03 was launched on a Soyuz-U, so it doesn't belong here. Oefe (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

that dont belongs here in this article.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Flight 68 aftermath

Flight 68 appeared to succeed but at least 9 of 72 cubesats were DOA http://spacenews.com/astro-digital-announces-first-cubesats-launched-on-soyuz-failed/ and an earlier article indicated that at least 2 cubesats were delivered to the wrong orbit http://spacenews.com/soyuz-launch-customers-search-for-cause-of-cubesat-failures/ ... I don't think this counts as a "partial failure" for the launch, but it's definitely worth adding a note in the launch table. Greg (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And now it's definitely a partial failure, Glavcosmos agrees. Another ref. http://spacenews.com/mysteries-surrounding-july-14-soyuz-flight-solved-not-quite/ someone updated the article before I got there. Greg (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

GLONASS-M 755

There is already a GLONASS-M 755 satellite in space. It was launched on 14 June 2014. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_2500 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.9.125.100 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed it from the list of scheduled launches (and also updated that list); it was probably an error in the source. — JFG ^talk 11:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soyuz-2. 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://www.webcitation.org/5mqiUXlX2?url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mqiUXlX2?url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.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: 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) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Soyuz cancelled after Ariane 6??

@WatcherZero: Where did you read about this?[1] Never heard of it. — JFG ^talk 21:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@JFG few references to it in non-public FLPP documents, they want to increase the launch cadence to reduce costs and the A62 will takeover the medium launch performance segment that Soyuz currently fills in their launcher lineup, particularly as the market is moving to GEO communication satellites heavier than Soyuz can launch. After the O3B constellation launches which Soyuz is ideal for (4x700kg to MEO) they only booked one more flight for Kourou last year (which has A62 as contracted backup), the bulk of the OneWeb launches (32-36 200kg LEO) will be from Baikonur. --WatcherZero (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very informative. There are some hints about this policy change in the interview of two CNES officials[2] that you added at Adeline (rocket stage)[3]. Perhaps we should cite this even if it's not a high-quality source, better than nothing. Should be attributed and conditional. — JFG ^talk 07:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done[4] — JFG ^talk 07:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, I think its a mark of respect to editors that when asked about Ariane 6 performance in that interview the assistant director of CNES says you can look it up on Wikipedia. WatcherZero (talk) 09:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was nuts, as Wikipedians would tell him "go back to sources"! — JFG ^talk 09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Soyuz-2

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Soyuz-2's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sfn":

• From Kosmos 2522: Stephen Clark (September 22, 2017). "Replenishment satellite launched into Russia's Glonass navigation fleet". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved March 31, 2018.
• From 2017 in spaceflight: Clark, Stephen (14 December 2017). "Launch schedule". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved 18 December 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)