This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I have seen too many articles there that are made up by pro-German propaganda writer(s) without any reliable sources to backup their claims. In one of the cases for example regarding the "Early Russian Ballistic Missiles" article, it says: "It was German aerodynamic analysis that came up with the unique conical rocket configuration adopted by Korolev for the R-7 and N-1. It was the German team that suggested fundamental features adopted by Korolev in the R-7 - integral propellant tanks, placement of the liquid oxygen tank forward of the fuel tank. German guidance teams developed a radio-corrected guidance technique that was adopted for the first generation of Soviet ballistic missiles. German-developed engines were used by Glushko as the basis for those of the same missiles."
Okay, that right there is straight up negligence of the major Russian contribution to space and rocketry age. The article makes it look like that the Germans created a R-7 rocket-kit and the Russians just tied the screws together and took the credit for the whole thing. Give me the evidence that the G-4 have anything in common with the R-7 rocket boosters, as matter of fact I even want anyone to to give me the real G-5 blueprint(s) WITH VALID SOURCES and their specifications of what they were designed to achieve and how exactly they co-relate with the R-7, because I don't trust the pictures that are represented at that site(windows paint was not available back in the 1940-50s). The sources I've seen there, links to Olaf Przybilski who have not been able to provide any reliable sources for many of his claims. So how can we trust this website? It mixes truth with lies obviously. I don't understand how this information after all these years still ends up on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"When the flight was publicly announced, it was celebrated around the world as a great triumph, not just for the Soviet Union, but for mankind itself. Yet it once again shocked and embarrassed the United States." (Ref. Hall (2001) (Emphasis added)
Since the citation is given at the end, I can't tell whether it is meant to verify just the "shocked and embarrassed" statement, or the previous sentence, which states the whole world celebrated it as mankind's triumph. While it is recognized today (out of the context of the Cold War) as the achievement of the first human in space, I find it extremely difficult to believe that, at the time it was universally perceived as such. The Soviet government, as ar as I know, never claimed the purpose of their space program was to benefit all mankind, being concerned mainly with proving the military and technological might of the Soviet state and "the glorious Communist revolution." "Around the world" certainly includes the United States, most of whose citizens at the time were scared as hell (not just "embarrassed once again") and did not necessarily see this as a triumph of all mankind. ("Mankind itself" is a clumsy phrase.) The first sentence sounds like someone's spin, and since I don't have immediate access to the cited source, I can't tell whether it's the authors', or the Wikipedia editor's spin. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The United States didn't spontaneously decide to launch a satellite when the Sputnik was announced (and neither did the Soviets). This took two years of preparation. The US made the first decision to launch at the International Geophysical Year in 1955, and the Soviets reacted with their decision to launch four days later; this effectively started the race. Sputnik is the first recognizable milestone, but that doesn't mean that started the race. Do not edit war; don't change the introduction without discussion. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Solomonfromfinland apparently created Category:Astronomical controversies, and recently added it to this article. Why do you think the Space Race was an "astronomical controversy"?
I think in including "Controversies in astronomy and spaceflight" when creating the category, you are conflating two things that aren't in fact related. Astronomy is a scientific discipline, and scientists can disagree about theories of astronomy. Spaceflight, by contrast, isn't just the science of astronomy; it is an engineering discipline (and could be categorized specifically with transportation) based on creating vehicles to fly in space. And any "controversies" that arise in spaceflight are basically political in nature. (I also don't think it's appropriate to categorize spaceflight accidents and failures as "controversies"; controversy means people disagree, and no one disagrees that failures and accidents are bad things which shouldn't happen.) The category should be broken out into a separate one for spaceflight, if you feel it's necessary to categorize these as such. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I can break up the category I created, splitting off part into "Category:Controversies in spaceflight" or something like that, which could be a subcategory of Category:Astronomical controversies. (I have long regarded spaceflight as a part of astronomy.)--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)