Talk:Soyuz (rocket family)

Talk 2004 - more statistics

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. :-)

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)

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)

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal comparing the shuttle and the Soyuz rockets published around the time the last shuttle flew. I'm pretty sure it listed a price per launch of the rockets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.10.161 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Soyuz is used for commercial launches it would be great if we could include some list prices. Is there a source we can use for the 35-40 M$ (2005) mentioned above ? anything more recent ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

Requested move

• Soyuz launch vehicle → Soyuz (rocket) … Rationale: Three main reasons:

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)

---

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)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment. How about Soyuz rocket (especially since it already redirects here) like some of the other Russian vehicles at List of launch vehicles? --Usgnus 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "(rocket)" is more common. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why not wait until WP:ICBM is settled? --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How long would that take? --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

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_Simulations_{User 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)

Two years later...I finally got round to it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes suck. No, really, why not just presenting the same information as a normal readable text?Mikus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-usability?

A reference to the "aging Soyuz rocket" in this article made me curious what was meant by the phrase. Are Soyuz rockets re-used? If not, does the "aging" reference in the linked article merely refer to the design, or are the rockets themselves old, assembled from parts made years ago? I'll also note that this WP article references the assembly of the rocket, but doesn't appear to mention where the assembled parts come from/are manufactured (at a quick glance through the article). That information would also help to improve the article. (Obviously we can't speculate what a reporter meant when writing an article, and since it's in the lede, it could very well just be some nonsense fluff). --RealGrouchy (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The yahoo article link no longer works, but almost certainly just meant that Soyuz rocket was an old design. In 2009 only the Space Shuttle was attempting reuse. - Rod57 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Lost/destroyed rockets

I came here as a few weeks ago there was a news report of a Soyuz with Progress launch that failed with the rocket exploding over Siberia. There was concern as the booster is also used for Soyuz spacecraft meaning it was important to discover why this launch had failed. This news article mentions the Progress loss and that apparently manned launches will be resumed.

Would it be worthwhile to document Soyuz failed launches? I know some failures may be borderline such as satellite not being placed in exactly the planned orbit. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Men into orbit

In my opinion "men" should be changed to humans or people since NASA and the RFSA have put both genders into space via their vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.41.16 (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed "most reliable" as being statistically unsupported and from outdated source

"most reliable launch vehicle in the world" points to citation [1].

This has only a statement in the headline that the vehicle is the most reliable. No statistics in support of this claim were readily apparent. Also, the cited source, as retrieved, says at the bottom, "Last update: 1 April 2004". Hardly current.

Since then, according to the current version of the article, there have been at least three more failures:

Another failure occurred on June 21, 2005, during a Molniya military communications satellite launch from the Plesetsk launch site, ... The flight ended six minutes after the launch because of a failure of the third stage engine or an unfulfilled order to separate the second and third stages.... On August 24, 2011, an unmanned Soyuz-U carrying cargo to the International Space Station crashed, failing to reach orbit. On December 23, 2011 a Soyuz-2.1b launching a Meridian-5 military communications satellite failed in the 7th minute of launch because of an anomaly in the third stage...

Because the cited source is dated 1 April 2004, any reliability statistics should be updated to include these incidents. If someone can find a recent reliable source, with statistical comparisons to other launch vehicles that show the Soyuz to be of demonstrably higher reliability than all others, then of course the claim should be re-entered, with proper citation. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuel name?

The article states that RP-1 is used as fuel in the Soyuz rocket family, but my understanding is that RP-1 is an American fuel. Is the fuel actually T-1 or RG-1, or are the Soyuz rockets really using American fuel? I understand that T-1 and RG-1 are very similar to RP-1, and that RP-1 is more well known to American audiences, but is there a little inaccuracy here? I'm not well extremely familiar with rocketry, so forgive me if this is a silly question. MSCI100SLL (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Library of Congress designation?

The intro currently ends with:

In the United States, it has the Library of Congress designation A-2.

However there's no source for this. I did a lot of searching, and from what I can find there were historically two "western" designation systems for Soviet rockets, a DoD system whereby the Soyuz would have been SL-4 and the Sheldon system whereby it would be A-2. Charles Sheldon worked for the Library of Congress, but I couldn't find any references that this was some sort of official Library of Congress designation.

Furthermore, according to: "The Soyuz Launch Vehicle: The Two Lives of an Engineering Triumph":

The other nomenclature was developed starting in 1962 and published in 1968 by an analyst of the Library of Congress, Charles S. Sheldon. This assigned a litter to each family of launchers. "A" for the Semyorka family, "B" and "C" for the two families of Kosmos launchers, "D" for the Proton, and "F" for the Tsyklon. And if applicable, a digit was added to designate an upper stage version. If needed, a letter was added to clarify the specific capabilities of the system: "e" for an escape stage, "h" for a high-performance stage, "m" for a maneuvering stage, "r" for a re-entry system, and "s" for a satellite station-keeping system. In Sheldon's nomenclature, the launcher for Sputnik was "A", for Vostok was "A-1", for Soyuz was "A-2", and for Polyot was "A-m". Furthermore, depending on whether it was used for a mission in deep space or for a mission to Earth orbit, the Molniya became "A-2-e" or "A-2-m". After enjoying their heyday in space literature devoted to Soviet astronautics, these designations fell completely into disuse in the 1990s when information on the different versions of the Semyorka and their Soviet designations filtered out, thereby highlighting the limitations of these derived classifications.

I really think the article could do without that sentence, or at least re-wording and a citation added. Onlynone (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

References

How recent is "recent"?

I've been trying to think of a replacement for "Recent incidents" which avoids the problem of how recent they actually are when someone is reading, but I'm drawing a blank… Any thoughts? —Phil | Talk 10:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon

With the launch of the Crew Dragon module on 30 May 2020, SpaceX Falcon 9 rockets joined Soyuz rockets as the two vehicles used since 2011 to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. Although the Falcon rocket family has not been finally certified by NASA for regular use (since the "Crew Dragon Demo-2" mission has been designated as a demo mission), this line could be revised:

"When the U.S. Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, Soyuz rockets became the only launch vehicles able to transport astronauts to the International Space Station."

Javathunderman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Could mention the hot-staging

Lattice between Soyuz core and 2nd stage presumably is for hot-staging, ie upper stage ignition before separation ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)