Talk:Comparison of space station cargo vehicles

Formatting
The entire table is in italics for no discernable reason. If italics have a purpose here their use should be made clear and consistent. 24.58.54.118 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. I don't have time to figure out why it all in italics, or whether their might be some rational purpose for the italics in other space comparison tables, but agree that it should not all be in italics with no explanation.  Feel free to edit it yourself.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Time to remove the italics Kcauwert (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MPLM issues
There's no denying the MPLMs were used for ISS cargo resupply via the STS, aka space shuttle. Most of the stats are taken from the Wikipedia MPLM page. I would suggest under 'spacecraft' column relabeling it 'Space Shuttle borne MPLM' and then changing 'launch system' to STS. This clarifies that it is a vehicular delivered cargo outside the shuttle's normal cargo capacity. Then again if you continue this logic I could envision several demonstrated shuttle cargo configurations, including MPLM, listed under the 'spacecraft' column. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On further thought, the retired Shuttle should get it's own row and separately a 'shuttle borne (or supported) MPLM' or combination total. Thoughts? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The MLPM is a problem; but I don't think it is one that cannot be solved. The article scope is about spacecraft—the MLPM is clearly not a spacecraft, but is rather a cargo logistics module that was carried inside the Space Shuttle's cargo bay.  My sense is that we should probably clarify in this article that the, now retired, Space Shuttle played a major role in carrying both upmass and downmass to the ISS during their years of joint operation.  (It is important to remember that most of the current ISS cargo vehicles are useless for downmass (to an Earth laboratory or manufacturing facility) and can only deliver mass to the space station; excepting Dragon, they cannot return any functional cargo from the space station.)  I suspect that we then would want to clarify the first column with text something like "Space Shuttle (cargo bay)" or something like that, and then the MLPM would be mentioned as a detail of explicating the specific spacecraft that formerly played that role.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This might be simplistic, but wouldn't changing the page title from 'vehicles' to something like 'vessels' make the grouping more broad and avoid having to bring up the multitude of Shuttle configurations/combinations. I mean If you think about it every module the shuttle delivered had cargo inside. Of course this methodology could also be used to incorporate everything I just tried to avoid listing and then some, but would allow MLPN to retain a row in the table. Aside all that, The Space Shuttle is a glaring omition on the page though approaching that and it's complexities are something that makes this look easy! Doyna Yar (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. While it might avoid the problem, there are two problems I see.  1) "vessels" is just not a word that in ordinary use is applied to spacecraft; 2) that would totally change the scope of the article:  the article is about spacecraft which are a well-known class of human-made physical objects and it has a well-understood definition.  A metalic-frame cargo structure, even when made of space-age materials and engineered by well-paid aerospace engineers is simply not a spacecraft.  That would be like comparing a Kenworth Class 8 truck with a shipping container.  They are two very different things, and ought not to be conflated in a single table as though the two physical objects are comparable.  The spacecraft to be compared with other spacecraft is the Space Shuttle and it's cargo bay, not the metal frame that could be carried inside the Shuttle cargo bay.  Hope that my metaphor is helpful.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, if the title of the article is off limits there has to still be a way to deal with the central issue is that the MPLM isn't a spacecraft... it is a container... but also a (temporary) module. It is within that contextual definition the problem lies in that nothing else compares, yet it is separate from the shuttle and does/did ferry supplies both up and down. So there's 1) giving it a separate paragraph/mention or table by itself, 2) Including it as one of several shuttle/cargo configuration rows, or 3) change the table columns. In the same vein where I was going before, change the 'spacecraft' column to a term more generalized and add a description subtype column listing say 'capsule (pressurized)', etc., to accommodate their subtle differences. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparibility within a single column
If these "Comparison" articles are to be meaningful, then the columns of data need to compare the same thing. While technically accurate, separating pressurized and unpressurized cargo for some spacecraft, but not others, within a single column is a problem. We might discuss, and then develop a consensus, on whether we have sufficient data on the various comparable vehicles to have a certain column in the table or not, but if we do so, I think we ought to have strictly comparable data in that column.

For example "Total upmass payload", or "Pressurized upmass payload", or "Unpressurized upmass payload" are each columns of data that might be compared in this article. But having a single column and then conflating the various types is not so useful, as it makes the numbers given be non-comparable between vehicles when only some of them are filled in.

Same problem exists for the massive difference between payload down capability that is Downmass payload (returned safely to a lab or facility on Earth) vs. Trash payload (to be burned up in the atmosphere) Destroyed return payload (if "payload" is even a correct descriptor for something that is trash and has no remaining economic value. I'm fine with all the data (that can be cited) being given in this article, but comparing the two in a single column is like comparing apples and oranges.

So I think it is either more columns (which may be too many for a comparison article) or single-parameter comparisons within a single column. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Few more columns could be added.Savemaxim (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree the chart is in need of work. First I’d suggest moving ‘Diameter’ after 'Height' followed by ‘Payload volume’ split and renamed ‘Volume pressurized’ and ‘Volume unpressurized’. This condenses the dimensional stats in the chart before mass stats. I’d simplify ‘Payload (kg)’ as a combined ‘Payload upmass (kg)’ after ‘Launch mass’. The reordered columns would be; Spacecraft, Origin, Manufacture, Launcher, Height (m), Diameter (m), Volume, pressurized (m³), Volume, unpressurized (m³), Dry mass (kg), Launch mass (kg), Payload, combined upmass (kg), Payload, combined downmass (kg), Power generation (W), Status. This keeps all the basic stats together in the chart and adds only one column. The problem with ‘Payload (kg)’ overall is it gets complicated for the chart beyond upmass/downmass, return/burn up, pressurized/unpressurized. Payload delivered to and from ISS could even be further subdivided into solids (food, equipment, experiments, etc.), liquids (water, fuel, etc.), and gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, etc.), but that’s really being anal. I would suggest a smaller separate second ‘Payloads’ chart to address the more cumbersome details this would require. Under the title ‘Payloads’, columns something like; Spacecraft, Upmass, pressurized (kg), Upmass, unpressurized (kg), Downmass, pressurized return (kg), Downmass, reentry burn up (kg). I don’t think there’d be unpressurized return and reentry burn up covers both pressurized and unpressurized. You could even move the two ‘Payload, combined’ columns to this unified payloads chart. This would leave the first chart as a vehicle comparison and the second a payload comparison. Which brings me back to the vehicle specs, and the MPLM not being a spacecraft issue. A column ‘Vehicle type’ might help with types like capsule (Progress), module (MPLM, ATV), pallet (Cygnus), or hybrid like Dragon (capsule/pallet) and HTV (module/pallet), etc. Well that’s my two cents after two pints :) Doyna Yar (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some very constructive comments.... The first table should become something like this then? Kcauwert (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would also tend to remove the 'Power Generation' column; as this data is not interesting enough for most readers? Maybe replace it with a column 'Number of flights' ? Kcauwert (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * With extended trunk

Space Shuttle
As a matter of completeness, should shuttle be on here as well? I know it complicates the picture as it's not easily comparable, but shuttle delivered considerable quantities of cargo to ISS in addition to the crew component. I'd "Be Bold" but I want to make sure it would be in keeping with the concept of the page. aremisasling (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, someone with knowledge please add the shuttle. If *you* are the one doing it, note the talk above regarding how to best include the shuttle. Benthatsme (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My feeling is Shuttle does belong here, period. The problem arises when 1) you look at every flight carried a different amount of payload/cargo, 2) the MPLM, various pallets, Spacehab, and Spacelab configurations, and 3) when delivering some, if not all ISS modules had cargo stowed as well and where do you find that information? It's a tall order if someone has the time and patience. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Comparison of space station cargo vehicles. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5ilAZ94fo?url=http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proressm.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proressm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320032815/http://www.spacex.com/SpaceX_Brochure_V7_All.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/SpaceX_Brochure_V7_All.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104010401/http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf to http://www.spacex.com/downloads/dragonlab-datasheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Crewed vehicles used without a crew as cargo vehicles.
There have been times when a crew capsule has been set to a space station without a crew. Most of the time this has occurred as a to test either a new capsule design or a new booster, although there was at least one time that a Soyuz rocket was launched uncrewed to replace one attached to a space station that was getting close to the end of it's service date.

Would a second table indicating times that has happened be appropriate? That new table would include SpaceX's Crew Dragon Demo 1 mission, Boeing's Starliner uncrewed demo mission, and the Soyuz MS-14 mission from 2019 (the first two testing a new capsule, the last testing Soyuz 2.1a booster for use with the Soyuz MS capsule.

--AmigaClone (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * We need to think about the terminology, is a crewed vehicle being flown without crew still a robotic craft or is it a manned craft on autopilot? WatcherZero (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)