Talk:Sputnik 1

Sound clip on page

In the name of accuracy it should be noted that the embedded "Sputnik signal" sound file on the page is identical to the "NASA false recording" linked at the bottom of the page. While the pulsating beeps are more or less uniform in the authentic Washington DC, German, and Czech recordings on the bottom of this page, a few of the beeps in the NASA recording hold for longer times - i.e. a "dotted half note" as opposed to a "quarter note" in musical terminology. This sound file should be replaced with one of the authentic Sputnik recordings (I would suggest the DC recording; while it is longer than the others, it is by far the clearest of the three recordings). --24.90.252.208 (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Crash Underride 10:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I put those authentic recordings online. This debate happens every few months. You can remove the fake audio (I have done several times) but someone else will just put it back. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda section

We noticed the lack of discussion regarding the propaganda value of the launch of Sputnik 1. This is important to complement the space race page and and to have a full understanding of the context of the launch.

Augiepropgroup (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that discusses the propaganda value, you are welcome to add it. Roger (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I can try and turn up some Russian historical material; from current observations (I know it's personal research eh), there was/is a systematic "eastern barbarians" attitude being artifically developed throughout America towards Russia. If it were not back then, there wouldn't have been such a "wave of near-hysteria" -- it's actually pretty stupid to tell people that "those are the enemy" and "those are stupid" simultaneously: if we are the enemy, you better not underestimate us; if we are stupid, then why are you copying us (in propaganda, too). I'd say that the worst Americans' enemy are those who are trying to push America against Russia while hoping to stay a bit aside. Wise people do not seek war. --Gvy (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This picture of the October 6th, 1957 edition of Pravda, fully devoted to the launch of Sputnik, seems to contradict the Propaganda section (the part that says the Soviets did not exploit Sputnik for propaganda purposes within the Soviet Union). Rustam (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks can you try to do that, I am a little confused!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.24.61 (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

edits by 98.81.25.132 - adding ambiguity

This anonymous IP user has made multiple edits to this page that introduce significant ambiguity. Many facts and figures have been prepended with "approximately" or "about". I honestly do not see the value in introducing so much ambiguity to the article. In addition, the edits have changed the name of the spacecraft to Sputnik I, rather than Sputnik 1. I strongly feel that the spacecraft's name should reflect the name of the article itself, as well as the stated Russian spelling. On top of all this, the user has made very misleading edit summaries that do not indicate at all the scope or extent of changes that were made. I know this sounds like I'm attacking the editor, but I feel strongly about people who try to mislead other editors with poor edit summaries... it gives me a feeling that they are purposefully trying to obfuscate their edits. I'd like to revert some/all of these edits soon, since this is a front page article. Thoughts?  Amit  ►  21:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems, especially references and citations

It is unfortunate that so few of the references are from books subject to serious editing.

At first reading I see few points in need of address. One problem in the first line of the article suggesting that PS-1 was a direct development of the decisions of 1956 to build a satellite for IGY. More correctly PS-1 was the result of the delay in developing Object D, the intended IGY Satellite, the gap in R-7 test due to delays in developing the re-entry vehicle for the RDS-37 bomb, and Korolev's anxiety that the US would beat him into space.

Satellite launching was not a major priority of the Soviet Union other than the ability to garner some kudos during the IGY. For the USA the IGY was an excuse to launch a 'civilian' satellite before the first WS-117L spy satellite to establish a right to 'freedom of space.'Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Decay Date

I see a conflict on this... The currently official information, albeit historical, states:

1957-001B           2   CIS        96.1    65.0      945        227         N/A
SPUTNIK 1                              Launched (10/04/1957)  Decayed [01/03/1958]
1957-001A           1   CIS        96.2    65.1      938        214     20.4200
SL-1 R/B                               Launched (10/04/1957)  Decayed [12/01/1957]

Source:
                          SATELLITE SITUATION REPORT

                          October 24, 2011

                     THIS REPORT CONSISTS OF DATA COMPUTED AT
                   UNITED STATES STRATEGIC COMMAND (USSTRATCOM),
             AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND (AFSPC) OR PROVIDED BY SATELLITE
                  OWNERS.  THE REPORT IS COMPILED AND PROVIDED BY:

                                 HQ AFSPC/XOCS
                          150 VANDENBERG ST. STE 1105
                          PETERSON AFB, CO 80914-4220

75.175.205.81 (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)