![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
DaveGod77.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In this news release from July 2008, NASA describes this class of vehicles as, "uninhabited resupply cargo ships." Note they have found a "politically correct" term to replace the non-PC "unmanned". I describe these terms as "politically incorrect" rather than "sexist" because there's no need to re-open debate about whether they're sexist or not -- I assume everyone can see that in some circles at least these terms are deemed inappropriate and their use has been deprecated? ( sdsds - talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can add a comparison image showing all the unmanned resupply crafts to scale of each other. -- Craigboy ( talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Since no one responded I went ahead and did it. If you want any changes to be made to it than just ask here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Progress has this ability but I don't it always have and I'm not sure about the other vehicles (they may be docked remotely). And I believe that the ATV, HTV (soon the Dragon and Cygnus) are grabbed by the manipulator arm and berthed to the station. Whether or not this arm performs autonomously or remotely, I don't know.-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
About three weeks after it is berthed to the Harmony module’s Earth-facing port, HTV2 will be relocated using Canadarm2 to the space-facing port on Harmony. to accommodate activities planned on the space shuttle Discovery’s mission. After Discovery and the STS-133 crew depart, HTV2 will be moved back to the Earth-facing port, which will put it in the proper location for a robotic unberthing. HTV2 is expected to spend about two months berthed to the Harmony module, and will be filled with trash before departing for a fiery re-entry over the Pacific Ocean."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition26/resupply_feature.html -- Craigboy ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What should be the standard for moving a craft from Future spacecraft to Current or former spacecraft? Should it be having made a flight? Or having docked with some space station? Or what? Whatever we come up with, I suspect that the article will need some adjustment. The TKS, as far as I can tell, flew, but never docked. (it is currently in "Current or former") The Dragon has flown, twice, but of course has not (yet) docked. (it is currently in "Future"). My proposal is to use orbital flight as the dividing line to move out of "Future". What say others? N2e ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The current lede, as of 2011-03-22, says:
Unmanned resupply spacecraft are a special kind of robotic spacecraft that operate autonomously without a human crew, designed to support space station operation. This is different from space probes, whose missions are to conduct scientific investigations.
To date, we have limited the scope of this article to "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that are servicing space stations, or more generally, that are servicing manned spacecraft. Probably principally because those were the only "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that were in regular operation. But the technological times are a changing. While in previous years, there was only a small demonstration mission (or two?) with an unmanned spacecraft resupplying an unmanned spacecraft (see ASTRO on the Orbital Express mission in 2007), recent announcements of Space Infrastructure Servicing and ViviSat are intended to resupply multiple geostationary unmanned spacecraft on a single mission. So, what to do? Should we broaden the scope of this article to make it match the article title: "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Should we think about making two articles for the, now, two different classes of "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Something else? N2e ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lists the "Shenzhou" cargo version, but some sources have said that the 8t Tiangong-I type would be converted into a cargo spacecraft for the Chinese space station (20t Tiangong-II type) 65.94.44.141 ( talk) 06:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling these craft "unmanned" is not appropriate under WP:GENDER. I am proposing this article be renamed Automated resupply spacecraft as a more gender neutral and accurate description. NASA and other companies use automated, robotic or even uncrewed to describe these craft. NASA no longer uses "manned" and calls its astronaut program the "Human Space Exploration Program". -- Abebenjoe ( talk) 00:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There's really no reason for a third of this article to be about SpaceX and geopolitics, especially when it's not even accurate (the US does not pay the Chinese to launch anything at all). If there are no objections I'll delete the section. Anythingcouldhappen ( talk) 08:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BOLD I renamed this article for the following reasons: First of all, I realize that "uncrewed" strikes many as less tasteful than "unmanned", so I understand the objection to that term. However, "unmanned resupply spacecraft" is an arbitrary name to begin with. In fact, it's not even the most WP:COMMONNAME by a long shot: a google search for the phrase "unmanned resupply spacecraft" turns up 244,000 hits. Searching for "automated cargo spacecraft" comes back with 2,830,000 hits. MOS:GNL prefers gender-neutral language where it can be used with clarity and precision. "Automated cargo spacecraft" is clear, precise, not at all awkward, and the most common name for these vehicles. It's also arguably more precise than "unmanned", since when docked to ISS these vehicles are no longer "unmanned" ( Progress (spacecraft)). I don't expect this to be a controversial name change, since "unmanned resupply spacecraft" has never been an official name, "automated cargo spacecraft" is the more common term for these vehicles by a factor of ten, and it avoids objections to the word "uncrewed" or other arguably awkward constructions, so I have gone ahead with the move. A( Ch) 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Automated cargo 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
DaveGod77.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
In this news release from July 2008, NASA describes this class of vehicles as, "uninhabited resupply cargo ships." Note they have found a "politically correct" term to replace the non-PC "unmanned". I describe these terms as "politically incorrect" rather than "sexist" because there's no need to re-open debate about whether they're sexist or not -- I assume everyone can see that in some circles at least these terms are deemed inappropriate and their use has been deprecated? ( sdsds - talk) 05:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can add a comparison image showing all the unmanned resupply crafts to scale of each other. -- Craigboy ( talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Since no one responded I went ahead and did it. If you want any changes to be made to it than just ask here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 03:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Progress has this ability but I don't it always have and I'm not sure about the other vehicles (they may be docked remotely). And I believe that the ATV, HTV (soon the Dragon and Cygnus) are grabbed by the manipulator arm and berthed to the station. Whether or not this arm performs autonomously or remotely, I don't know.-- Craigboy ( talk) 06:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
About three weeks after it is berthed to the Harmony module’s Earth-facing port, HTV2 will be relocated using Canadarm2 to the space-facing port on Harmony. to accommodate activities planned on the space shuttle Discovery’s mission. After Discovery and the STS-133 crew depart, HTV2 will be moved back to the Earth-facing port, which will put it in the proper location for a robotic unberthing. HTV2 is expected to spend about two months berthed to the Harmony module, and will be filled with trash before departing for a fiery re-entry over the Pacific Ocean."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition26/resupply_feature.html -- Craigboy ( talk) 04:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
What should be the standard for moving a craft from Future spacecraft to Current or former spacecraft? Should it be having made a flight? Or having docked with some space station? Or what? Whatever we come up with, I suspect that the article will need some adjustment. The TKS, as far as I can tell, flew, but never docked. (it is currently in "Current or former") The Dragon has flown, twice, but of course has not (yet) docked. (it is currently in "Future"). My proposal is to use orbital flight as the dividing line to move out of "Future". What say others? N2e ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The current lede, as of 2011-03-22, says:
Unmanned resupply spacecraft are a special kind of robotic spacecraft that operate autonomously without a human crew, designed to support space station operation. This is different from space probes, whose missions are to conduct scientific investigations.
To date, we have limited the scope of this article to "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that are servicing space stations, or more generally, that are servicing manned spacecraft. Probably principally because those were the only "unmanned resupply spacecraft" that were in regular operation. But the technological times are a changing. While in previous years, there was only a small demonstration mission (or two?) with an unmanned spacecraft resupplying an unmanned spacecraft (see ASTRO on the Orbital Express mission in 2007), recent announcements of Space Infrastructure Servicing and ViviSat are intended to resupply multiple geostationary unmanned spacecraft on a single mission. So, what to do? Should we broaden the scope of this article to make it match the article title: "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Should we think about making two articles for the, now, two different classes of "unmanned resupply spacecraft"? Something else? N2e ( talk) 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The article lists the "Shenzhou" cargo version, but some sources have said that the 8t Tiangong-I type would be converted into a cargo spacecraft for the Chinese space station (20t Tiangong-II type) 65.94.44.141 ( talk) 06:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Calling these craft "unmanned" is not appropriate under WP:GENDER. I am proposing this article be renamed Automated resupply spacecraft as a more gender neutral and accurate description. NASA and other companies use automated, robotic or even uncrewed to describe these craft. NASA no longer uses "manned" and calls its astronaut program the "Human Space Exploration Program". -- Abebenjoe ( talk) 00:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
There's really no reason for a third of this article to be about SpaceX and geopolitics, especially when it's not even accurate (the US does not pay the Chinese to launch anything at all). If there are no objections I'll delete the section. Anythingcouldhappen ( talk) 08:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:BOLD I renamed this article for the following reasons: First of all, I realize that "uncrewed" strikes many as less tasteful than "unmanned", so I understand the objection to that term. However, "unmanned resupply spacecraft" is an arbitrary name to begin with. In fact, it's not even the most WP:COMMONNAME by a long shot: a google search for the phrase "unmanned resupply spacecraft" turns up 244,000 hits. Searching for "automated cargo spacecraft" comes back with 2,830,000 hits. MOS:GNL prefers gender-neutral language where it can be used with clarity and precision. "Automated cargo spacecraft" is clear, precise, not at all awkward, and the most common name for these vehicles. It's also arguably more precise than "unmanned", since when docked to ISS these vehicles are no longer "unmanned" ( Progress (spacecraft)). I don't expect this to be a controversial name change, since "unmanned resupply spacecraft" has never been an official name, "automated cargo spacecraft" is the more common term for these vehicles by a factor of ten, and it avoids objections to the word "uncrewed" or other arguably awkward constructions, so I have gone ahead with the move. A( Ch) 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Automated cargo 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)