Talk:Progress (spacecraft)

Early comments

Do we need to include the Everything2 sig at the bottom? I am unfamiliar with their license but if it doesn't need to be included, it shouldn't be... -lommer 20:39, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many changes have been done since the original Everything2 version. I also suggest removing the label.

I think that the references to N2O2 oxidiser in this article should actually be N2O - can someone check this?--NHSavage 10:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Now fixed - just a typo, the linked article was correctly N2O4.--NHSavage 10:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

ATV delayed::

The ATV has been delayed till ~ mid 2007. Changed accordingly.--subzero788 4:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Unmanned?

Is it correct to call this spacecraft unmanned when it is unmanned only during the launch and re-entry and when docked with a space station it can be entered and inhabited by astronauts? If it is still unmanned, then all modules of the space station also should be called unmanned since they also inhabited only when docked to the station.--Planemo 20:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with it being called unmanned, it is not flown my anyone inside. It can only be entered if attached to the space station in orbit. I suppose it could make clear in the article that the spacecraft when attached to the space station acts basically as another section of it, allowing astronauts to enter it. But the important thing is that it is never used for flight (either into orbit, in orbit, or in re-entry) manned. Anyway that is IMHO 128.243.220.21 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC) this is me Lethaniol 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, a spacecraft attached to a space stantion work essentially like a module of the station. And all modules of a manned space station considered manned, in spite no one ever entered in orbit in it or re-entered atmosphere.--Planemo 16:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've worked out a consensus on this. FWIW, I agree that technically its considered unmanned, even if it does support life while docked with the station. Shell ^babelfish 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference from a space station module?--Nixer 07:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Space station modules are (semi-)permanent fixtures of the station and generally cannot operate independently. The Progress is a cargo ferry, and is only entered for loading and unloading, and operates independently and unmanned when not attached to the space station. siafu 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the key word: unmanned when not attached to a space station. I will change the article. --Planemo 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unmanned period. The fact that people go in there when it's attached to the station to unload it doesn't mean that it's suddenly "manned". siafu 14:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus here is that the spacecraft is to be consider unmanned, so I'm changing the article back to reflect that. siafu 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say it is unmanned. My understanding of unmanned is that it is not guided by a human or if it is, then the human is not on board. If a person gets into a UCAV to put some more ammunition in or take some out, it is stilled classified as unmanned. The flight of this vehicle is when nobody is on board so I would support this being labeled unmanned. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then any space station module should be labelled "unmanned". The fact is that all spacecrafts are devided in two large classes: manned and unmanned that share common properties. Manned vehicles always pressurized, have thermoinsulation and usually have docking nodes. Unmanned usually unpressurized and never have docking nodes. The Progress shares properties of all the manned spacecraft and naturally should be classified as a part of manned astronautics.--Planemo 05:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pick any unmanned aircraft or spacecraft, and at _some_ point there will be people in it doing something, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly manned. The Progress space freighter does not transport humans, so it is unmanned. If you want it classified otherwise, provide good quality references that describe it as manned. WP:NOR - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a transport module, some other parts are living quarters. The reason it is pressurised and insulated is so that the astronauts can access the supplies without suiting up. I don't want to sound as though I'm trying to disprove you but these sources say that it is an "unmanned" spacecraft[1][2][3]. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, look at the first link. At the top. Now read. SPACECRAFT:Manned:Progress. Now open the third link. Look at the top. "Article Number: 11F615A15. Manufacturer's Designation: 7K-TG. Class: Manned. Type: Logistics. Destination: Space Station Orbit. Nation: Russia. Agency: MOM. Manufacturer: Korolev." The second link is prohibited to access from my location.--Planemo 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to read the articles, that is the title of the first link, in the article it reads "The concept of the unmanned ship ultimately won". With regard to the 3rd link, that is referencing the craft that they modified to make the Progress. The first line of the 1st paragraph reads "Progress took the basic Soyuz 7K-T manned ferry designed for the Salyut space station and modified it for unmanned space station resupply."

But enough of this petty arguing. How about we edit the article to say

• "The Progress spacecraft is unmanned during it's flight but upon docking with a spacestation it allows astronauts inside."

or something along those lines. Any comments? James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See also here:[4], here:[5] and here:[6]. This is official designation. It is labelled manned by the manufacturer. I think your wording acceptable, but we should mention that it is classified manned by the producer.--Planemo 10:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I will let someone else edit the article however it does say the craft is manned so I have changed my mind. The article should say "manned". James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nicely done [7]. Explains the situation with the manned'ness very well. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, that's actually a bit circular. Any reference to Mark Wade is identical to references to Encyclopedia Astronautica. In the end, a single source is being cited for the 'Manned' designation. If you actually visit the manufacturer (Korolev/Energia), they use 'Unmanned' whenever they describe the Progress freighter. Here is an example press release, there are many more on their site. I think Mark Wade is great, but I would think that the actual manufacturer's designation would be considered a bit more carefully. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, also remember we are talking about a spacecraft. Its primary purpose is travelling from A to B, and it is unmanned during these trips. The fact that people can enter one of its modules at its destination doesn't make it a manned spacecraft any more than the fact that people can enter the same module before launch. Andrewa (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Progress 24 from Plesetsk ???

• Afaik, all Progress have been launched from Baikonour. Furthermore, I doubt the image is a NASA one... Hektor (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the source of the image says Baikonur, not Plesetsk. (Fixed.) The source does credit NASA for photo. (sdsds - talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

M1

Please can someone provide a cite for the Progress M1 still being in service. I believe it was retired after the Columbia accident. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• One's just cropped up on the launch schedule. I withdraw my request. --GW… 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Flight costs for Progress

I will admit this is more to settle a "side bet" with somebody else, but for those who follow the Progress spacecraft, how much do the Russians "charge" NASA each time it goes up to the ISS for resupply, and is it even remotely suggested as something that could be purchased "cash & carry" for something like a Bigelow Aerospace station?

I've read discussions about the SpaceX Dragon that would cost something on the order of about $100 million USD per flight (give or take about $50 million depending on a whole bunch of factors), but I can't find anything about how much the Russians charge for the Progress when it is used. All I'm looking for is a ballpark figure and something of a citable reference would be preferred. Of course, adding information like this would be useful to add to the article as well. The usual Google search doesn't seem to give me any good answers, but perhaps somebody having this on their watch list might have a better idea on where to look for this type of information. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Progress spacecraft OR Progress (spacecraft)

Should this article be renamed to "Progress (spacecraft)"? Convention of the Orion (spacecraft) and others with parenthesis identifying type or group. LanceBarber (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Individual flight articles

I've notices that a lot of article have been written for individual Progress flights, for instance Progress M-67. I'm wondering if these are really necessary, as they all follow a very similar pattern, and, with the possible exception of, say, Progress 1 or Progress M-SO1, might have issues with WP:NOTABILITY. Any thoughts? Colds7ream (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think there is sufficient information, particularly with the cargoes of the recent flights, to support it. I would say that all resupply missions to space stations are inherently notable. There's too much information for one article anyway, which is why they were split out. --GW… 12:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've merged the Progress 1 article into Salyut 6 EO-1, with a redirect. Progress 1 seems to fit fairly naturally there, with no need for its own article.

Robotics project attention needed

• Refs - large amounts of text have no refs
• Content checks
• Reassess

Chaosdruid (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Progress MS-1 and Progress M-UM

What about these spacecrafts as seen on the page 2014 in spaceflight? Are they new versions or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.56.102 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

MS-1 is the first of a new series which will replace the current Progress-M; M-UM is a one-off similar to Progress M-SO1 and Progress M-MIM2 which will be used to deliver the Uzlovoy Module to the station. --W. D. Graham 22:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Failures

We need a new section "failures"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.233.124 (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Progress (spacecraft). 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://web.archive.org/web/20120206002159/http://www.spacecraftnames.info/1.html to http://www.spacecraftnames.info/1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023050925/http://www.astronautix.com/articles/rustions.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/articles/rustions.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Lede

The sentence about NASA nomenclature is totally unclear to me. What is named such, one ship or a line? Is there a "ISS 2P"? Can someone clear this up? --84.189.84.17 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)