Talk:Salyut 2

message: article says salyut 2 lost 4 solar panels and it had 2 solar arrays. what is the difference between a solar panel and a solar array? Filanca 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that panel refers to one rectangular section of a solar array and an array is an entire wing of panels. 69.12.155.64 01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007

message: It's part of the Almaz program, but the article doesn't list any weapons. Was it just a prototype for salyut 3, or did it have weapons not listed in the article? 69.12.155.64 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons 

message: The article says it "was launched April 4, 1973"... and "on April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch" there was an accident. There is a mistaken here. Please, check these dates. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong dates 

message: According to the article as of 2011-01-04, the Salyut 2 broke up in orbit.  And per the 1995 NASA paper by Portree, the Salyut re-entered as multiple pieces, with "all trackable pieces reentered by May 28, 1973." .  So I'm wondering if it is really appropriate imply that days in orbit, no. of orbits, and distance traveled are quite as precise as stated in the article today:  
*"Days in orbit         54 days"
*"Number of orbits      866"
*"Distance travelled    35,163,530 kilometres (21,849,600 mi)"
It seems to me we ought to remove these claims from the infobox, given the particular circumstances of the spacecraft and, by one account at least, it's multiple trackable pieces in orbit after the spacecraft failure.  N2e (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to all the references I can find, a few parts, such as solar panels, came off, however the core station remained largely intact. I've found four items catalogued under 1973-017 that are not associated with the disintegration of the Proton third stage, which according to Jonathan McDowell's copy of the Satellite Catalogue, correspond to the station itself, and three pieces of its solar panels. --GW… 15:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, much better now, with substantial, and substantially more, sources on the various claims added to the article in the past week.  I think the sources do identify that the spacecraft was mostly intact on reentry now.  I will happily go with consensus on leaving the precise number of days, orbits, etc. in the article.  Furthermore, the entire article is MUCH improved over its condition just one week ago.  N2e (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Broke up in orbit

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Salyut 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/5il9QixAg?url=http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf to http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/RP1357.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Infobox style was changed way back in 2007, and at that time Crew changed from "0" to "3". Why? It never was occupied. A minor point but ... . GeeBee60 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crew?