Talk:Roscosmos/Archive 1

Move
Nicholas has requested that this page be moved (see request). Please add support or oppose below, with an optional one sentence explaination, and sign and date ( ~ ). Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 18:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Material merged

 * This article contains material merged from a duplicate article, now archived at Talk:Russian Federal Space Agency/Other, along with its complete history. Noel (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

role of RKA
I believe the role of RKA/Roscosmos is somewhat mistaken in the article, but before editing I thought it would be wise to discus it first. RKA is a state agency with a budget, usually outlined in 10 year plans as proposed in 2005 for the direct future. (Although it must be noted that promised money is either provided late or not at all). This budget is used for various projects such as manned space flight, space research, running space infrastructure and development of new programmes.

The article however is mistaken in the role the RKA plays and what is being done by private and state space companies, (such as Makayev, Ergomash, Energia, Krunichev etc. etc.) For example, the RKA does not launch the Proton LV or any other launch vehicle for that matter. It has a role in a launch campaign, such as providing infrastructure (cosmodrome and guidance of rockets). Launches of commercial satellites are managed by companies such as ILS, Eurocket, Starsem which work with the RKA on a fee base. On other (state, but not military) launches (manned soyuz and unmanned Progress) it can be seen as the prime contractor which manages the flights and different subcontractors.

As for Science mission I would make note of Mars 98, Foton and bion missions.


 * I would like to follow up on this and get the article to reflect a clearer (and more fully sourced) understanding of whether Roscosmos is ever a "launch service provider". Or does e.g. RSC Energia fill that role for Proton and many (all) Soyuz rocket launches? (sdsds - talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Progress
At the bottom it states Progress is the only unmanned cargo spacecraft. Isn't the ESA ATV also an unmanned cargo spacecraft? Lintsniffer (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright policy of RKA?
Does anybody know if there's a general copyright policy used by the RKA for the images it produces and whether any such policy would apply to images produced by it's soviet predecessors? Lately bots have been expunging almost every last image produced from soviet space probe data often leaving us with no examples of, for instance Venera Venus surface images.Zebulin (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Monkeys on mars
I just read an interesting article on BBC's website about the Russians sending monkeys to Mars. Thought it was pretty interesting but I couldn't find anywhere to mention it in the article.Krawndawg (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Buran.jpg
The image Image:Buran.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Tereshkova2.jpg
 * Image:Laika.jpg
 * Image:Kliper-esa.jpg
 * Image:Gherman Titov.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"People" subsection.
I'm surprised that V. Tereshkova isn't listed -- she was the first woman in space, about 20 years ahead of S. Ride.

Also, it would make a lot of sense to include engineers like Korolev as important people (who did much more than the flight crews to make the space program what it was).

I don't know how pictures work on Wikipedia, which ones are "legal," and which ones aren't. It looks like some were already removed. Someone who does know, please change these things. 70.59.150.74 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Budget - huh?
The budget it says is 58 million Rubles, roughly $2 million. But the Space Tourism Program for Russia, alone is worth $100 million. So can the budget be $2 mil for the whole organization, when only one of its activities has a budget of $100 mil? Don't you mean $2 billion? Where did those numbers come from? I'll change it to $2 bil until I can get better clarification. 68.164.237.54 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Particularly odd news...
''Russian scientists will soon meet in secret to work on a plan for saving Earth from a possible catastrophic collision with a giant asteroid in 26 years, the head of Russia's space agency said on Wednesday... "We will soon hold a closed meeting of our collegium, the science-technical council to look at what can be done" to prevent the asteroid Apophis from slamming into the planet in 2036, Anatoly Perminov told Voice of Russia radio.'' Any ideas? Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AFP, December 31, 2009, Secret plan to save Earth from asteroid, Yahoo!7 News


 * What is so odd about this? If we add this to the article now, it would be somewhat out of place, because it's not yet very important for the agency or the space program. I'd say we should insert it later when we have more details about funding, etc. Offliner (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Hall of Space Technology
I propose to redirect this image and caption to Soviet space program, this article is specifically for the Russian Federal Space Agency, while the image in question pertains to the Soviet space program which ended before RFSA was created. --24.185.14.171 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The same concerns the Historic gallery, it should be moved to the Soviet Space Program article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.14.171 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Space program vs. agency
This article has a big problem in that it doesn't separate the space program and the agency. Russian space program also redirects here, which is pretty stupid, since Roskosmos only has a small role in many space activities. I'm probably going to move most of the material to Russian space program sometime, and let this article discuss only the agency itself and its role in coordinating space efforts. Offliner (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think separate articles for the programme and the organisation would be a good idea. The same should be applied to all other countries. -- G W … 12:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will start working on the separation. Offliner (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still haven't had the time to do the separation, but here's just one more point why it needs to be done. The article says Roscosmos has "a leading role" in commercial satellite launches. What role? For example, Proton launches are marketed by International Launch Services, Khrunichev produces the rockets and conducts the launches. I fail to see where the agency itself plays a "leading role" in all this, other than doing the regulatory work. Offliner (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

C or K?
The story spells the agency name as Roscosmos, but the title is Roskosmos. Are they both correct? Donpdonp (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

String of launch failures in 2011
With five launch failures (of some 30 or so total launches) during 2011, and considerable and notable political fallout, including internationally, it is probably appropriate to say something in the article about the (political or technical) crises that is occurring in some aspects of the Russian space program. There have been many reliable source mainstream aerospace press reports on the individual problems this past year, but this Aviation Week article does a fairly comprehensive job of summing it up: Russia Falls, China Rises in Space Efforts, 30 Dec 2011. It seems to me to be a clearly vitally important (if not existentially important) string of events for Roscosmos. What to other editors think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the failures should be mentioned in Roscosmos' article. They're mainly not the agency's fault. I've long been planning to create a separate article titled "Russian space program", which would give an overview of the whole space program instead of just covering the agency (like this article does.) The recent failures could go into the general space program article. But even then, only inserting the failures is dubious and undue: one has to take account that Russia performed 35 launches compared to 18 of USA and and 19 of China. So it is understandable that Russia also had more failures. The Western press is (as always) extremely negative in its coverage of everything related to Russia. The Russian launch rate has also increased considerably in recent years, from 26 in 2008 to 35 in 2011. If the failures of 2011 are to be mentioned, then so should be the increased launch rate, as well as other recent positive developments. Nanobear (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of TsENKI
Hi all,

Just wanted to make you aware of The Center for Ground-Based Space Infrastructure Facilities Operation (TsENKI). The centre was established at the Russian Space Agency in 1994. It employs over 1,000 and is used by a host of European partners:

http://www.tsenki.com/en/partners_customers/foregn_partners/Foreign_enterprises/ http://www.tsenki.com/en/about/}}

It also worth reviewing or including :Baikonur facilities operation

Can any of this be used? Their website does provide some very useful technical info, but some of the content will be a little lost in translation (please refer to english version).

Jackobs (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a newbie on this, how can we get TsENKI included?Jackobs (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think TsENKI is notable and important enough to have its own article: The Center for Ground-Based Space Infrastructure Facilities Operation. I think it would be best if you could create the article and insert all the material you think is interesting and notable. Then after the article has been created, we can insert a summary of it into this article and perhaps into Space industry of Russia. Nanobear (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Russian Federal Space Agency → Roscosmos – I think the Russian Federal Space Agency article should be renamed to Roscosmos as it is the common name used by the agency itself as well as the news agencies and people. (Per WP:COMMONNAME). Though I still think that this should be up for discussion. Woofygoodbird (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though Roscosmos (or ROCKOCMOC) is the name used on the logo, even in official presentations from agency representatives I have attended, I can't say that I have ever heard this name spoken out loud even by Russians. "Russian Federal Space Agency" completely trumps "Roscosmos" in the google test (2.75 million vs. 680,000), and also in google scholar (81,900 vs. 627). There may be more hits for the cyrillic version, but since this is the English wikipedia, that would not be relevant. siafu (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Russian Federal Space Agency is the common name in English, a possible alternative in English might be Russian Space Agency.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎  04:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Russians sent a rocket to the Moon 2015th
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Russian space agency said it will 2015th year to send a rocket to the Moon and to launch a new station in the east of the country, and not from the Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Roscosmos director Vladimir Popovkin told Russian media that the missile to carry a vehicle for the exploration of space with equipment for testing water and soil samples. Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that it will invest a billion dollars in exploration of the Moon.78.3.221.243 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Links
>> Kazakhstan suspends Russian missile tests(Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).

Move to Roscosmos Space Corporation
This move seems hasty and poorly structured. There had already been a debate on whether to move the content of Russian Federal Space Agency to an article named Roscosmos. The consensus was against the move.

It would have been appropriate to have a Roscosmos disambiguation page since the same name has been given to two different entities with similar functions. One article should be on the Russian Federal Space Agency, and the other on the new state-run corporation called Roscosmos. --Libertyguy (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a wholly new entity, then it should have its own distinct article. RandomCritic (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article should be moved back to Russian Federal Space Agency, and a new article on the new entity created here. - BilCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe the easiest thing to do at this point is to create a new Russian Federal Space Agency page (or, rather, create a page on the current redirect) and move all of the historical pre-2016 information there. RandomCritic (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved as unopposed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943  (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Roscosmos State Corporation → Roscosmos – 'state corporation' is just the type of business entity (see article), the common name is Roscosmos. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Number of people working in the field
I placed the tag on the following statement:"The Russian space sector employs about 250,000 people, while the United States has about 70,000 people working in the field."First, the source that is cited (found here) states at the end:"In a previous interview, Rogozin said Russia about 250,000 people in its space sector, while the United States has about 70,000 people working in the field."The source itself sources the claim to Rogozin, and not any expert/R.S. on the American space industry whereas the article simply presents it as fact. Secondly I am extremely skeptical of the claim that only 70k people work in the space field. NASA itself employs 18k, and the large defense contractors employ many more thousands of people: Boeing claims 55,805 in the "Defense, Space & Security" group and Lockheed Martin claims it employs 113k people total without stating which ones work in space (I'd guess around 10-20%). This isn't counting the numerous other space companies and contractors in the United States (like Orbital Sciences Corporation, employing 3000+ people). It seems quite unlikely that the total number of people working in the space field in the United States could be anywhere near that low; it's most likely comparable to the 250k cited for Russia. It would be appropriate to remove the statement from the article, but better would be to find a way to properly attribute it without giving it the weight of actual fact. siafu (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Three years later, but there is no deadline, I have resolved the issue by attributing the statement to Rogozin and clarifying his point (it's about relatively low productivity of the Russian space industry, not the absolute size of it – in fact he would love to have fewer people). — JFG talk 03:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roscosmos. 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/20160101123217/http://www.financialexpress.com/article/lifestyle/science/vladimir-putin-abolishes-russian-space-agency-roscosmos/184669/ to http://www.financialexpress.com/article/lifestyle/science/vladimir-putin-abolishes-russian-space-agency-roscosmos/184669/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006160241/http://www.designntrend.com/articles/18811/20140902/russias-orbiting-sex-experiment-geckos-die-in-space.htm to http://www.designntrend.com/articles/18811/20140902/russias-orbiting-sex-experiment-geckos-die-in-space.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Space tourism
They've been doing low earth orbit space flights for members of the public since the 70's. If I recall correctly it was in a converted mig fighter, converted to go to such an altitude. HardeeHar (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hall at Kulaga Museum
The picture for sure does not show a mock up of Salyut 1 space station. The mock up seems to be show a DOS-3 or DOS-4 version. Salyut-1 had 4 solar panels, two attached to the front section and two to the service section derived from Soyuz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.159.142 (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Origin of abbreviation "RKA"?
Can someone add an explanation for the abbreviation "RKA" by which Roscosmos is apparently known? This isn't obvious from the Russian-language agency names or anything else currently in the article. Also, if "RKA" started being used at some specific time in the agency's history, that would be useful information. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Buxareu (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

 * Total number of launches: 3,206 in 64 years = 50 launches per year
 * Success: 3,001 (93.6%)
 * Failure: 205


 * Max launches in one year: 108 launches in 1982
 * Max successful launches in one year: 99 launches in 1982
 * Max number of satellites in one launch: 36 on a Soyuz-2.1b rocket on 18 December 2020


 * (after 1961) Largest gap between two launches: 95 between these two launches: 2016 Jul 16 - Soyuz-U-PVB - and - 2016 Oct 19 - Soyuz-FG
 * (before 1961) Largest gap between two launches: 194 between these two launches: 1959 Oct 4 - Vostok-L 8K72 - and - 1960 Apr 15 - Vostok-L 8K72


 * 116 consecutive successful launches between these two failed launches: 26 Sep 1983 - Soyuz-U - and - 27 Nov 1984 - Tsiklon-3
 * 83 consecutive successful launches between these two failed launches: 30 Aug 1991 - Zenit-2 - and - 27 May 1993 - Proton-K/DM-2 - Gorizont

Barecode (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)