Talk:Soyuz (rocket family)

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Soyuz engines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Soyuz Launch Costs and Statistics 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why no use of *Infobox rocket* in Soviet rocket articles? JDG 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to be the only person using this template () at the moment, and I just haven't got round to it yet. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Two years later...I finally got round to it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes suck. No, really, why not just presenting the same information as a normal readable text?Mikus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox rocket 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re-usability? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lost/destroyed rockets 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Men into orbit 

message: "most reliable launch vehicle in the world" points to citation .
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)
thread_title:  Removed "most reliable" as being statistically unsupported and from outdated source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fuel name? 

message: The intro currently ends with:  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":
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)
thread_title:  Library of Congress designation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How recent is "recent"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Could mention the hot-staging