![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The ATV has been delayed till ~ mid 2007. Changed accordingly.-- subzero788 4:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
But enough of this petty arguing. How about we edit the article to say
or something along those lines. Any comments? James086 Talk | Contribs 10:36, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
We need a new section "failures"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.233.124 ( talk) 08:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The ATV has been delayed till ~ mid 2007. Changed accordingly.-- subzero788 4:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
But enough of this petty arguing. How about we edit the article to say
or something along those lines. Any comments? James086 Talk | Contribs 10:36, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Chaosdruid ( talk) 11:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
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)
We need a new section "failures"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.233.124 ( talk) 08:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)