Talk:Soyuz at the Guiana Space Centre

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Soyuz at the Guiana Space Centre → Soyuz-ST – There is absolutely no reason to use a made-up, descriptive, name when a real one exists and is unambiguous. -- W.  D.   Graham  05:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)  W.   D.   Graham  05:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any confirmation that ST is specifically variant launched from French Guiana. Plenty of sources refer to Soyuz 2.1a and 2.1b as a Soyuz ST - so this would mean that ST and Arianespace Soyuz are two different things as we know that both: 2.1a and 2.1b are launched from Plesetsk Cosmodrome (even the first launch of 2.1b was from Plesetsk1), on the other hand while working on the article I stumbled upon some sources that mentioned Plesetsk and Baikonur-launched Soyuz 2.1b with ST fairing (eg. here). And finally: the title of this article is not "made up" - it's the official name of a programme as indicated in the sources. It also happens that russian version of the article follows identical naming convention and covers the same topic (just found it today). SkywalkerPL (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Soyuz at the Guiana Space Center" is the official name of the project and certainly not made up.12 Keep the article here with a focus on the Soyuz at CSG project and leave the Soyuz-ST page for the launch vehicle itself. A ( Ch ) 04:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, the Soyuz-ST and the ST-type fairing are not the same thing. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. Noone said that a fairing and a spacecraft are the same thing. If you're trying to say that Soyuz 2.1b with ST fairing and Soyuz STB are not the same thing - I couldn't find any reliable source confirming that beyond shadow of a doubt so that it'd fulfil the Wikipedia standards of sourcing. I actually started writing this article as "Soyuz ST-B" then switched to "Soyuz ST" (in order to include 2 launches of ST-A variants - there's no point in writing article for rocket that launched twice and just as well could be described with ST-B variant) and then gave up in my search, switching to much safer topic, the programme itself. I would actually prefer this article to focus on a rocket instead of a programme but way too many sources use 2.1b/ST / 2.1b with ST fairing / ST-B in a fully interchangeable manner (actually - some sources even seem to mix 2.1b (no suffix) with ST-B - which is rather silly).
 * If you can provide sources proving beyond shadow of a doubt that 2.1b with ST fairing and 2.1b/ST are two different rockets while 2.1b/ST and ST-B is the same one - you should first update the Soyuz-2 (rocket) article to clarify the distinction and then we can discuss renaming this one. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2014 (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.

Wrong time in 'Booster Separation' timeline entry? - fixed
The typical launch timeline shows that booster separation occurs at T + 4m:47s. This is incoherent with all of the events before and after it. Someone with a proper source should double-check and correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.159.178 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 28 December 2014‎


 * ✅ SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with content from Ensemble de Lancement Soyouz
A lot of content is duplicated in Ensemble de Lancement Soyouz, and some is out of date. Suggesting a merger and cleanup. This page is the best destination because construction of the ELS was a necessary part of the program to launch Soyuz missions from Kourou. — JFG talk 20:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated proposal: Keep separate articles but do not repeat launch history on the ELS page. Consensus on this? — JFG talk 09:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Pinging contributors to both pages for input:


 * Support as nom. — JFG talk 21:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I think the article is being maintained by Russian contributors, only explanation why its disproportionately longer when only about a minor part of the facility. WatcherZero (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - ELS should NOT be a part of article about the programme, just like ELA-3 is not merged into the article about Ariane 5. While there certainly is some overlap (not in the content, but in the concept) - launch pad is an entity so distinct that having separate article makes sense, and that's how it's resolved in other cases, I see no reason why this article should suddenly be merged, especially considering an already significant amount of content in the article about ELS. In terms of a context ELS article exist as a part of series of articles about a CSG launch pads that should remain integral, just like every other series of articles about launch pads does. SkywalkerPL (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neutral Seems important enough to warrant an entry by itself, but I see no problem with incorporating into the main article on the launch complex. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ELS is the pad, not the rocket. Soyuz launches from many pads, even within the same space launch port. There are many articles about pads (Baikonur's Site 1/5 and Site 31/6, or Plesetsk's Site 41/1, Site 16/2, Site 43/3 and Site 43/4), that are not merged. Baldusi (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Galileo launch on Soyuz, 21 Oct 2011 (6266227357).jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Galileo launch on Soyuz, 21 Oct 2011 (6266227357).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 1, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-01. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What does ArianeSpace charge for a Soyuz launch ?
What does ArianeSpace charge for a Soyuz launch ? - This article has no indication of price to compare with other launchers. - Rod57 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bureau of Eurospeak recovery of FM1
In November, ESA announced the satellites would perform a total of 15 orbital maneuvers to raise their perigee to 17,339 km.

This would reduce the satellites' exposure to the Van Allen radiation belt, reduce the Doppler effect, increase satellite visibility from the ground, and allow the satellites to keep their antennas pointed at Earth during perigee.

These orbits would repeat the same ground track every 20 days, allowing synchronization with other Galileo satellites which repeat the same ground track every 10 days.

Once in their new orbits the satellites could begin in-orbit testing.

Recovery of the satellites concluded in March 2015, when Galileo-FOC FM2 entered a new orbit, mirrored to the orbit of Galileo-FOC FM1, which concluded its manoeuvres on the end of November 2014 and successfully passed testing.

Currently satellites overfly the same location on the ground every 20 days, comparing to 10 days of standard Galileo satellites.

First of all, did the recovery conclude (with full recovery), or did the recovery effort conclude (settling with whatever partial success achieved?)

Second, in practice what does it mean for a 20-day instead of a 10-day ground track period? I'm baffled as to what this signifies on the ground.

Third, "allow" in what sense? Was the orbital mechanics messing with antenna orientation, or was the out of kilter orientation making it unwise to point the signal earthward? Or were they in violation of their FCC covenant (and the European and Chinese equivalents) when pointing their antenna at the earth from akimbo apogee? Hopelessly unclear.

Finally, "successfully passed testing" relative to the original test plan, or the hastily improvised test plan? And if the later, with how much loss or sacrifice, and at what additional cost?

I thought I might clear this up with a Google search, only I crashed like a tiny bird into a glass paywall:


 * The first Galileo FOC satellites: From useless to essential — presented 26-31 July 2015

&mdash; MaxEnt 21:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Complete end of Soyuz launch from the CSG
Hello, just to say we have official confirmation in the press that Soyuz launch from the CSG aren't just "suspended", but definitively canceled. Stephane Israel sayed last month that "Soyuz is over" and there will no longer be any Soyuz launch from Sinnamary

I dont speak english well enough to do the edit by myself (I just edited the Ensemble de Lancement Soyouz page), so im just saying it here, hoping that a better Wikipedian than me make the edit

https://la1ere.francetvinfo.fr/guyane/il-n-y-aura-pas-de-prochain-lancement-soyouz-depuis-le-centre-spatial-guyanais-1349512.html Cosmiaou (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)