|Soyuz (spacecraft) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Russia / Technology & engineering / Economy||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Number of modules
- 2 L1
- 3 L3 naming
- 4 Versions
- 5 Dimensions
- 6 Soyuz LK-XX subsections
- 7 Deeper meaning of name
- 8 Preformance
- 9 Solid fuel braking
- 10 Reentry or Descent - Terminology Consistency
- 11 "the Soyuz has an unusual sequence of events prior to re-entry."
- 12 Cosmonaut height accommodation
- 13 Comparison to Apollo: synthesis, OR
- 14 Soyuz MS
Number of modules
- A Soyuz spacecraft in its crew transfer version consists of five modules. There are three pressurized modules: the Habitable Module, the Descent Module, and the Instrument Module. There are two unpressurized modules: the Adapter Module, and the Assembly Module. The article should be corrected to reflect this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
- Should the "L1 Soyuz" concept be in here, see Mir Hardware Heritage. Chris H 20:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
All of soviet space systems (spacecrafts, launchers etc) after development under letter-figure designation with start of open using obtained the official full name in the form of any word. Moreover, for some systems the full name were given before or without the exploitation: Almaz spacestation by Chelomey bureau, Sever spacecraft by Korolyuov bureau, Zvezda military spacecraft by Kozlov bureau (predecessor of 7K-VI), etc. From the Soyuz family the circumlunar spacecraft 7K-L1 became Zond. What official or unofficial full name was intended for L3 complex (or for 7K-L3 and 7K-LK separately)?
I'm adding infoboxes for several Soyuz versions, as a first step in moving that information into separate articles. Not a very nice layout right now, but keeps all info in one place. Ricnun 22:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- OK, created pages for all the different versions, and moved most of the images and data there. Let's see how this works over time. Ricnun 00:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Says diameter is 13.61 ft/2.72 m and height 57.44 ft/7.48 m . Isn't a meter just over 3 feet?22.214.171.124 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- 57.44 feet = 17.507712 meters. Maybe someone lost the leading "1"? (sdsds - talk) 04:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Volume = 254.27 sq ft (23.622 m2)" doesn't make much sense as m² is a measure for area. also the conversion sq ft - m² is off by a factor near 10, so apparently someone forgot the last digit of the sq ft-number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Soyuz LK-XX subsections
it is unclear to me the differences and relationships between the different LK-XX spacecraft.. but it strikes me that instead of having a different subsection for each one, the reader would benefit more from have a couple of paragraphs outlining the differences, and developments. i'll take a crack at this, but i might get something wrong. Mlm42 10:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Deeper meaning of name
I reverted this edit, which was made with the comment, "Deeper meaning to 'Soyuz' in relation to Soviet nationalism". I would like to have this content be part of Wikipedia, but I was concerned that it was not properly sourced and may not have been NPOV. Also, the soyuz programme article might be a better place for discussion of the meaning of the name. (sdsds - talk) 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This article lacks one of most important statistic for any spacecraft: how much was flown and how much succesfully. I know about two flights that ended in LOC, but how much was flown in general?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madcio (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It is the most successful/safest/most reliable spacecraft in history, judging from number of mission to number of problems arising from those missions.
- It may be now, it was a deathtrap. Poor Komarov. All the problems they had with the unmanned test flights and yet they still sent him up.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Solid fuel braking
"At one meter above the ground, solid-fuel braking engines mounted behind the heat shield are fired to give a soft landing."
- One meter is correct. This breaking is the direct equivalent of the "splash down" which American capsules used. It just takes the edge off of the final impact. Like an airbag deploying in a car. NeilFraser (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Reentry or Descent - Terminology Consistency
Reentry Module and Descent Module seem to be used interchangeably throughout the text. Which is the correct term that should then be used consistently throughout the article? CliffVHarris (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"the Soyuz has an unusual sequence of events prior to re-entry."
Really? The one spacecraft type that has outlived all other spacecraft types in terms of service duration does something 'unusual'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Cosmonaut height accommodation
This article says:
Soyuz TMA (A: антропометрический, Antropometricheskii meaning anthropometric) features several changes to accommodate requirements requested by NASA in order to service the International Space Station, including more latitude in the height and weight of the crew and improved parachute systems.
Comparison to Apollo: synthesis, OR
From the Design section:
- By moving as much equipment as possible into the orbital module, which does not have to be shielded or decelerated during atmospheric re-entry, the Soyuz is both larger and lighter than the contemporary Apollo Command Module. The Apollo had 6.2 cubic meters (220 cu ft) of living space and a mass of 5,000 kilograms (11,000 lb); the three-part Soyuz (command, orbital and service modules) provides the same crew (since the Soyuz T in 1980) with more than 7 cubic meters (250 cu ft) of living space (5 cubic meters (180 cu ft) in OM, plus 2.5 cubic metres (88 cu ft) in RM), an airlock, and a service module for the mass of the Apollo capsule alone (mass of empty Soyuz was 5,600 kilograms (12,300 lb)).[improper synthesis?] On the other hand Apollo was operating with three astronauts in spacesuits and was able to land with five astronauts in spacesuits in 1973 (prepared rescue mission for second Skylab crew), Soyuz was for two cosmonauts in spacesuits in the 1960s and 1970s, and for three since 1980 (Soyuz T).[improper synthesis?] On nine Apollo missions (9 through 17) the astronauts also had access to the Lunar Module, which added 6.7 cubic meters (240 cu ft) but also another 2,200 kilograms (4,900 lb) of mass (if counting just the empty ascent stage as being somewhat equivalent to the Soyuz orbital module, although including empty fuel tanks, engine and RCS system — 14,700 kilograms (32,400 lb) when including the descent stage and fuel).[improper synthesis?]
(I inserted convert templates to get English units to make comprehension and verifiability easier for US users.) This has been here a long time, and not a citation in sight. And there just sounds like wild speculation about the Lunar Module. The guidelines say we're not just supposed to lump facts together to make conclusions. And the purpose of the article is to present information about the Soyuz, not to bash Apollo. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
4throck (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Yes, that part of the article is a summary of Soyuz, so no Apollo talk. Any comparison should be to earlier Soviet spacecraft, not with Apollo. Really Apollo vs Soyuz deserves it' own section, but further down the article.