Talk:List of spacecraft called Sputnik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon List of spacecraft called Sputnik is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see List of spacecraft called Sputnik at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

Fiftieth anniversary coming up[edit]

Is it possible to bring this article up to "Featured Article" quality by Oct 4, 2007, the 50th anniversary of Sputnik I and the start of the Space Age? TechBear 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This 50th anniversary Newsweek article claims that the U.S. was shocked by the launch is a myth[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Newsweek article is junk, just something one of their staff writers whipped up. Sadly, this article is not very high quality. I would suggest "featuring" the Sputnik-1 article, which is somewhat better but still not very good. DonPMitchell 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pic of the Sputnik Arming Key[edit]

It's in the Air and Space Museum? How did America get their mitts on the last surviving piece of Sputnik? That's a story that would be handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghmuggle (talkcontribs) 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense vs. Notability[edit]

Most of this article is nonsense. There was no central "Sputnik programme". After the first two or three satellites, the designations were made up by Western organisations to allow for the identification of unrelated satellites whose names the Soviet Union had not disclosed. The word "sputnik" appeared in a number of other Soviet programmes, but these were unrelated and were due to the fact that the word "sputnik" is Russian for "satellite". This article should be cut back, and possibly moved to Prosteyshiy Sputnik, which was the name of the programme for the first two satellites. --GW 11:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree. Sputnik-1 was a satellite ans Sputnik-2 was a spacecraft carrying a dog! Anyway, the Soviets only designated the development of Sputnik-1 as Sputnik Project or Sputnik Pogramme. Sputnik-1 is actually "Prosteishy sputnik" meaning "simplest satellite" in Russian. The actual Sputnik program or project refered to the development of Prosteishy sputnik and Sputnik-2 was a different and a follow-on programme of the Sputnik Pogramme. More info from Anatoly Zak's website -- [2] --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I gather, the official designation for Sputnik 2 was "Prosteyshiy Sputnik 2" --GW 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Prosteishy means 'simplest' or 'simple' in Russian. It was used to designate Sputnik-1 as the design of the satellite was supposed to be as basic as possible. Sputnik-2 was not designated as Prosteyshiy Sputnik 2. Anyhow, the conclusion is that Sputnik-1 and Sputnik-2 aren't part of the same project so this article is baseless. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • There are quite a few references available for Sputnik 2 being PS-2, if you look. --GW 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The original satellite design for launch during the IGY was Object D. It was complex, heavy, with extensive experiments and telemetry. it was WAY behind schedule when an opportunity arose due to delays in the development of the re-entry vehicle for Sapwood there were missiles being produced which essentially had no immediate test program mission following the successful launch of 8L71 number Mi-8 in August. Korolev begged the commission controlling the development of the 8K71 to let him to modify to launch a 'simple satellite.' The results in little more than a month was the 8K71 PS and the orbiting of PS-1. A successful re-entry vehicle was not tested until spring of 1958.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Have no idea on this topic, but do know there are other articles about spacecraft named Sputnik that surely belong somewhere. If Sputnik 10, Sputnik 9, Sputnik 8, Sputnik 7, Sputnik 6, Sputnik 5, Sputnik 4 and Sputnik 3 are notable (and they are if they retain existence here on Wikipedia), they belong somewhere. If not here, then under the proper program name (ie: Vostok programme or whatnot). Again, I don't understand the interrelationships/programs but from my outsider's viewpoint the Sputnik program did indeed exist. If not, someone who understands needs to find homes for Sputnik 10 through Sputnik 3 or flag those as non-notable (if they are, indeed, which I am not suggesting, since I have no idea.) - Ageekgal (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I can tell:
"Sputnik" number Correct name Remarks
Sputnik 1 Prosteyshiy Sputnik 1
Sputnik 1 Prosteyshiy Sputnik 2
Sputnik 3 ISZ D-1 #2
Sputnik 4 Korabl Sputnik 1
Sputnik 5 Korabl Sputnik 2
Sputnik 6 Korabl Sputnik 3
Sputnik 7 Venera 1VA #1
Sputnik 8 Venera 1
Sputnik 9 Korabl Sputnik 4
Sputnik 10 Korabl Sputnik 5
Sputnik 11 Kosmos 1 Has also been applied to Vostok 1
Sputnik 12 Kosmos 2 Has also been applied to Vostok 2
Sputnik 13 Kosmos 3
Sputnik 14 Kosmos 4
Sputnik 15 Kosmos 5
Sputnik 16 Kosmos 6
Sputnik 17 Kosmos 7
Sputnik 18 Kosmos 8
Sputnik 19 Venera 2MV-1 #1
Sputnik 20 Venera 2MV-1 #2
Sputnik 21 Venera 2MV-1 #2
Sputnik 22 Mars 2MV-4 #1
Sputnik 23 Mars 1
Sputnik 24 Mars 2MV-3 #1
Sputnik 25 Luna E-6 #2
    • I don't know how best to name the articles where the name includes the "#" symbol, since technical restrictions prevent its use in titles. I would suggest either removing it (as I have done above), or replacing it with "no.". Sputniks 11 and 12 are disambiguation pages for correctly named articles, whilst 13-18 and 23 are redirects to the correct names. I feel that 8 should be merged, and the rest moved to the correct locations, with the exceptions of Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, which are widely known by their shorter names. --GW 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You must understand just how propaganda and secrecy driven the Soviet Union space and missile programs were. The term 'Sputnik' was used for cover over the Zenit spy satellites, the Vostok manned space program, and various other military programs.

The USA used the term 'Discoverer' as a cover to hide the Corona and other spy satellite programs.

The list given shows this clearly. There WAS NO SPUTNIK PROGRAM. There was just a term which was useful for propaganda and to obfuscate.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that sometimes Soviet satellites lunar, and planetary probes were simply referred to as 'sputnik (insert next number in sequence) by some western "authorities" when the Soviets openly called them by other names. As the 'real' names and purposes of all space probes of the times have now been revealed by both sides this kind of controversy needs to be resolved by dissolving the the fictions. This can be difficult because common usage has often become 'fact' while the real 'fact' has become lost except to the serious student. For example many 'histories' list the rocket that launched Explorer I as a 'Jupiter-C' when it was a similar Juno-I. The Jupiter missile was nothing like the Jupiter-C, but when it was equipped with the upper stages of a Juno-I, it was deemed a Juno-II.

That this article is termed "Sputnik Program" is laughable, but it is what it is named. The best we can do is try to shape it into what it actually seems to address. The first man-made earth satellites launched by the Soviet Union pursuant to the goal of orbiting a satellite during the IGY. Satellites which had a profound effect upon the world all out of proportion to their actual accomplishments.Mark Lincoln (talk)

You're preaching to the choir. I can find no evidence that the Soviets used the name Sputnik beyond Sputnik 3. There were some later spacecraft whose name contained the word Sputnik (eg. Korabl' Sputnik), since the word Sputnik became established in Russian as meaning satellite or spacecraft. If you look at the NSSDC entry for "Sputnik 22", it actually states that the Sputnik designations were assigned by the United States Naval Space Command, rather than the Soviet Union. --GW 06:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have several books from the time listing the booster as the "T-3." NATO soon gave it the name Sapwood, and designation SS-6. OKB-1 used the sequential R-7, but soon called it Semyorka "old number seven." The GURVO (Main Missile Directorate) used the industrial designation 8K71 (or 8K71PS for the satellite launcher). Later developments were the R-7A, the actual ICBM, which was produced in two versions the 8K74 and 8K710, both of which were also Semyorka!

We had our own confusing system of designations. As with the Soviet's it was largely a matter of bureaucracy and public relations, but lacked the Soviet security fetish. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency had a program called Hermes. One sub-project, Hermes C-1 was developed into a tactical missile designated XSM-G-14, later XSM-A-14, then by it's popular name 'Redstone." Eventually it ended up designated PGM-11 in the great nomenclature revolution under Sec. of D. McNamara. Redstone was modified into Jupiter-C to test sub-scale re-entry vehicles for the "Jupiter" (aka B-76 (after operational use was transfered to the USAF), SM-76, later SM-78, and finally PGM-19 and PGM-19A. 'The times they were a changing'! One had to be an avid worshiper of von Braun's Tomorrow Land shows or have a score card to keep up with the changes.Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Henry_Ford [edit]

Why is he here?

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hopiakuta, the "Henry Ford" was just a vandalism introduced in this edit. I have reverted it. In future, if you see obvious vandalism such as this you can just revert it yourself. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "sputnik"[edit]

Surely the translation "companion" is a bit naive - I would suggest that the better translation would be the more political "fellow traveller" Maelli (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The public name was a political statement. The OKB-1 name was "PS-1" for "Simple Satellite 1."Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the article engages in a degree of political correctness in attempting to use strict dictionary meanings at the expense of a colloquial meaning which any Soviet Citizen mid-20th century would have inferred given the context of use. As an avid fan of the old TV series "I Led Three Lives" in the 1950s I am aware of the political use of the term 'Fellow Traveller". As a person who has known a few old members of the CPUSA I can say that I have heard them use the term "Fellow Traveller" for someone who was not a party member, but travelled in the same circle concerning political and social issues. I think it would be neither pandering to the right, or misinterpreting the word given usage, to describe Sputnik as a "Felllow Traveller of Earth."Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Problems Mentioned[edit]

Clearly this article is not well documented. i guess some one has to take their books down from the shelves and get to it. I am not a masochist, but I guess that person is myself.

Feedback from others would be appreciated as I try to shape up this article.Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this work satisfies those who questioned the need for more inline citations and references.Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Lincoln you have done a wonderful job adding resources I am removing the flag. Sgerbic (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem I see with the article is the spurious reference to 'sputnik 40 and 41." The other is the degree of influence upon people at the times given in the "impact" section. One quaint relic in my library is is a book "Spacepower what it means to you." Published in 1958 is is typically void of fact and speculative as were most publications for the public at the time. It has a chapter "Sputnik's Impact on the free world." It is essentially 'source' material for that subject being written less than a year after the event. It lists 7 separate subjects and discusses the "Impact of Sputnik" upon leadership, strategy and tactics, missile production, applied research, basic science research, education, and democratic culture.

This could be used to slightly elaborate the 'impact' section. If there is a problem with length it might be prudent to slightly abbreviate the list of US Satellites mentioned as reducing anxiety. (Mom was far more impressed by SCORE than I, though I was and am a big fan of Ike).

Input please folks, I don't want to make any changes that will provoke a flame war.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have got rid of the section on Sputnik 40 and 41. I think we should leave a brief mention of them under "Impact". --GW 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A Basic Problem With This Article[edit]

There never was a 'Sputnik Program." The cultural event and device commonly called 'Sputnik" was not the product of any coherent program.

Sputnik was a term used by the Soviet Government as a name for it's first and some subsequent satellites.

The section on 'Sputnik 40 and 41" involves devices with absolutely NO connection to the Sputniks of 1957-58 aside from an attempt to grasp at some faded glory.

I recommend the article be pruned of utterly unrelated material and be renamed for the object, both technical and cultural that is evoked by the name 'Sputnik."Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


Might this article be better named and described by something like "Sputnik - Soviet IGY Satellites and Their Consequences"? Wow, is that awkward! At least it has a smidgeon of truth whilst the idea there was a "Sputnik Program" is without any historic support.

This article is a conflation of technical facts about a few early satellites, the political circumstances and consequences as well as the social and historic effects of those satellites.

To anyone who lived at the time the conflation is most rational.

To historians of the technology or times the conflation is necessary for context.

For Korolev the IGY was an excuse to pursue space flight. For the USA it was an excuse to establish the legal right of free transit above the sensible atmosphere. For both it could be justified on grounds of scientific research.

That both Korolev and von Braun were eager to develop military hardware that could be used to fulfill their dreams is ironic. That the United States decided to build a (theoretically) all "civilian" launch vehicle to establish a legal precedent while avoiding any interference or delay of ongoing military missile programs is also ironic.

That Korolev developed the most important space launch vehicle in history under the guise of the worst ICBM ever developed is another irony. That von Braun and the ABMA were launching space probes in a desperate attempt to survive Pentagon infighting over which service would deploy the long range guided missile gets drowned out in the still lingering resentments of who lost the claim of the "first Earth satellite" for the United States.

That the most efficient of the satellite launch vehicles used for IGY satellites was the 'despised' Vanguard is also an irony as it achieved exactly what it was intended to do.

The Juno is long gone, having passed while another Redstone variant, Redstone Mercury, went on to lob the first American into space a few weeks after a development of the R-7 put the first Soviet into orbit.

Vanguard lives on in a vastly mutated and developed form as unrecognizable and unrecognized as Delta.

Semyorka labors on in it's own greatly improved variant launching Soyuz and Progress missions. Today the old workhorse, the developed version of the 14A14, son of 11A511, son of 8K87, son of 8K71PS, "Old Number Seven," remains in harness, the only means either Russia or the United States have of reaching the International Space Station.

Meanwhile the passions, the shock, fear and pride which swept the world despite the initial modest responses of Dwight and Nikita have passed into history as they have.

What to do with the awkwardly named "Sputnik Program" article?

I have attempted to resolve the need for citations, and make a few additions and alterations that seemed necessary. I think that doing any radical surgery without input would be not only rash, but perhaps feckless.

Input pleaseMark Lincoln (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  • My preference would be to move to either Prosteyshiy Sputnik (the name of the programme which led to the first two satellites), or Sputnik (over a redirect) if we intend to cover Object D as well. --GW 06:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't even a Prosteyshiy Sputink program. The two "PS" launches were ad hoc and utterly opportunistic. The delays in both the re-entry vehicle and the Object D scientific satellite created the chance which Korolev seized to launch the space age. p.s. one thing that caused both confusion and mirth in OKB-1 in the late summer of 1957 was the pun mixing the initials of Prosteyshiy Sputnik and Sergei Pavlovich. The initials in each case having only slightly different pronunciation.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the word "Sputnik" fits both the first three Soviet satellites AND the political/diplomatic/social response.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sputnik suits me. --GW 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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.

No consensus. With the changes made, it is possible that a renomination to a different name could be called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik programSputnik – Current title is misleading as it implies the subject was a clearly structured and defined programme, rather than a series of loosely related missions, as demonstrated in previous discussion. Sputnik, which currently redirects here, would be a more appropriate title since it is free of those implications. --GW 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik was a name given the Soviet Government for the PS-1. PS-2 and Object D Earth Satellites. Thereafter it became a generic term applied to satellites of Soviet origin. Even when the Soviet Union gave other names to other satellites, planetary probes and solar orbital vehicles many in the west continued to give them the 'sputnik' name followed by a sequential number.

No one working on the PS-1, PS-2, or Object D satellites thought of them as part of a program as far as I have been able to find out.

"Sputnik" was a generic term, and became a term which describes not only the object, but the world's response to it's launch. I cannot recall anyone in 1957 talking of a 'Sputnik Program.' Indeed I cannot recall ever seeing the term until opening this article.Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but if there was no such thing as a Sputnik Program in the first place then, regardless of the name we give it, why do we have an article on it in the first place? Couldn't the information in this article simply be merged into those of the specific satellites? ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a good point. Quite a lot of this article duplicates information in Sputnik 1. I would be in favour of either a move, or getting rid of this article altogether. In the event of a merger I feel that Sputnik 1 should become the primary topic for the Sputnik redirect, not a disambiguation page. --GW 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree Sputnik should redirect to (or even be title of) the Sputnik 1 article. Powers T 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be strongly opposed to moving Sputnik 1, its name is established, and there were other Sputniks (2 and 3), so it would make sense to preserve the consistency of numbering. --GW 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I favor using the common name over maintaining consistency; most people mean the first one when they say "Sputnik". Powers T 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that it is that much more common, and it would be both confusing and misleading since generally if a number is not present, then it is implied that there are no more highly numbered spacecraft of the same name. --GW 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I've only just realised from this conversation that Sputnik does not point to Sputnik 1! That is clearly unacceptable because at least 9 times out of 10 someone typing Sputnik will mean that one, the first satellite. I suspect the common name guideline would favour Sputnik as the primary for that rather than Sputnik 1 but personally i'm not that fussed, as long as one points to the other.
This article cannot be renamed Sputnik as to most people it means something else. I suggest this page is removed as it documents something that didn't actually exist, it feels a bit like historical revisionism by misrepresenting the situation. Anything worth salvaging should be moved to the appropriate pages. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with a few editors above that Sputnik should redirect to Sputnik 1. Not exactly sure what should happen to this article. –CWenger (^@) 17:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps historical perspective would reflect the times and have a "Sputnik" article with Sputnik I, Sputnik II, and Sputnik III sections followed by an "Impact Page." Sputnik III" was the last of the 'earth shaking" Soviet satellites. It was their only launch in 1958, and by 1959 the US had proven more prolific and diverse in it's launches. If you who were not alive could check some source material you would see that 'Sputnik' was a world changing event, it was set off by a couple of hastily concocted 'Simple Satellites," and subsided after the launch of the much delayed IGY satellite."But it was the appearance of he first Soviet Sputnik in October of 1957, that directed of a startled world to the challenge of space." wrote Dr. Homer E. Newell on page 2 of his 1961 book "Express to the Stars." Sputnik was an event composed of three satellites of that name, each far more advanced than the former. History cannot be viewed without some context. In the case of 'Sputnik' the seminal event in the history of space exploration, a revolution in world thought, as well as a series of technical objects which bore the name.Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For two generations in the world "Sputnik" meant more than just an object. It was an event. Perhaps the whole problem with the name is "Program." There was no 'program.' There was, however, and immensely influential event and resultant response. Most of the people in the world were not "Space Cadets" as people who were eager to see exploration of space were called in the 1950s. Space exploration was seen as 'science fiction' at best, insane at worst.

Suddenly the world woke to the advent of the "Space Age." The effects were global and for both the USA and USSR, formative. Sputnik reformed the Cold War and was the impetus for the 'Space Race" which landed man on the Moon.

Sputnik 1 was an object, device. "Sputnik" was far, far more and it took the USA 12 years to overcome the feelings of shock and fears of inferiority it induced.

The second word is the problem. Perhaps the article should be shaped and named towards the "Sputnik Revolution,' or "Sputnik Era"? (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have Sputnik crisis documementing the fallout of the launch of Sputnik 1, though that article currently has problems with presenting a more global picture of the event. That article is a much better basis for the information you wish to retain. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked it. There is more information here and it is better documented. Perhaps it would be best to give this page the name "Sputnik Crisis", move some details and citations to the Sputnik I, II and III pages then merge what additional material which might improve this article from the 'old' Sputnik Crisis page?Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the value of an article on the satellites themselves written from an Americanised perspective. --GW 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'American Perspective'? Do you mean where the name for the booster is given as T-3, M-104, or SS-6 and people pronounce the the word "spuht-nik"?

When I was righting my historiography thesis I had to treat three major weapons development systems, German, British, and American as well as a few minor efforts, and do so with a neutral bias or my professor would have lowered my grade.

When Sputnik went up in October 1957 the world awoke to a series of dramatic changes which affected the course of history.

Ironically the first day neither of the governments of the two super-powers were much concerned.

The rest of the world, including their respective citizens, were.

In the USA there was an orgy of soul-searching, introspection and blame. Soviet citizens were enthralled, elated, and celebrated that there was finally proof the entire world could see, and not ignore, that their society could beat the USA. Europe, both east and west, responded similarly to the super-powers.

For the next decade the US and CCCP engaged in a missile race which made it possible to annihilate each other without any hope of defense. The opening moves of this arms race began with what seemed to many world-wide as a great Soviet lead. It was, however, a great American lead as the 8K74 (R-7A, SS-6) was a lousy weapon while the Atlas and Titans were quickly fielded in large numbers. America also armed allies with Jupiter and Thor missiles. The results was a desperate attempt by the CCCP to balance reality ended up known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis." That Missile Crisis had it's roots in the expanded efforts of the US to address the 'missile gap' which was nothing but twaddle based upon the reaction to Sputnik.

In August 1957 it was only 'space cadets' (to use the derisive term of the times for people who thought space flight possible) noticed when the evening news carried a story about the Soviets firing the first ICBM into the pacific. It was a brief story towards the end of the broadcast. The response was world wide in October. The "Space Age" was on, as was the "Space Race," and it didn't end until July 1969.

The response to Sputnik was a world-wide phenomena which changed history immensely. Is that not a subject worthy of a Wikipedia page?Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and we already have two or three articles on it. I'm not saying we shouldn't have such articles, I'm just saying that if we have an article about both the satellites themselves, and the reaction to them, then the nam of that article should reflect the satellites not the reaction. --GW 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To those who lived then, or are familiar with source material, the word 'Sputnik' relates to both the object and the response.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the proposed title "Sputnik crisis" relates primarily to the response. --GW 00:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
For clarification I wasn't proposing "Sputnik crisis" as a desired term, I was pointing out to the other editor that an article discussing the geopolitical impact of the event, which they were fearing would be lost, already existed and covers this concept centrally as opposed to this article where the impact of the phantom programme is a (comparatively large) subsection. I agree the name is not perfect. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So by way of resolving this, is anyone in favour of keeping this article in (kind of) its present form, which implies that these three missions called "Sputnik" were part of a single program, or if not a "program" as such, then something else (what?) that deserves its own WP article? If not (i.e. if these missions are connected by not much more than sharing the same name), then it seems to me we should create a disambiguation page for "Sputnik", and then argue separately about whether Sputnik 1 is the primary topic for "Sputnik". (In fact, if it is, then we might not even need the dab page; we could just have a "Sputnik redirects here..." hatnote at Sputnik 1.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No response, so I've made Sputnik redirect to Sputnik 1 as everyone seems to think it should, and rewritten the dab page accordingly. That leaves the question of what to do with this page; obviously it's not going to be moved to Sputnik as originally proposed, but how about moving it to something like Sputnik missions (so as not to imply that there was a "program" involved)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2011 (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.

Quality Assessment[edit]

Is this page still just 'Start Class'? If not, what need be addressed? (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it looks to me a bit short, but either way there's not much point putting the effort in assessing if it's going to get deleted. Better to wait for the outcome of the discussions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we sweat hogs will just have to await dictum ex cathedra. May we petition the Gods with prayer?Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead image?[edit]

The current lead image is an artists depiction of Sputnik in orbit. Now, maybe it's just personal preference, but as we have an available picture of replica hardware (currently in the Early Flights section), I think we should be using that. The current image strikes me as just too stylized for an encyclopedia article. (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The image portrays the thought of Sputnik more than the hardware. The real impact of Sputnik was not the PS-1 itself, but the radical change it made in the perceptions of the people of the world.````
It might just be personal preference, but I don't see why we need an artist's impression of Sputnik. For instance, choosing between an image from Apollo 11 and Alan Bean's artistic vision of what Apollo 11 represented, I would choose the Apollo 11 photographs 100% of the time. Now I realize this is a limited analogy (for instance, there don't appear to be any free images of any actual Sputnik hardware), but I think the point still stands that artistic license should be minimized in an encyclopedia. I certainly won't be changing the image if there's no consensus to do so (and as it's stood for 2 years it appears there isn't or won't be), but I did want to bring it up. (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense meaning of the word "sputnik"[edit]

It's unbelievable that some editors start to guess idiotic alternative names for foreign words. Sputnik means satellite, nothing more than that. The problem is that who wrote these (I can say the word) do not know what the word satellite means, and associates the name exclusively to astronomy. Satellite means: Person who, entirely devoted to others, is with him at all times and he became an accomplice in the commission of good or evil deeds. Or in other words, a companion. So in English or in Russian Satellite, means exactly the same. If is something related with human nature means companion if is related with astronomy, means "satellite", and not a companion, like someone is trying to invent in the article. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

говорятMark Lincoln (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
говорят, 'They Say' in po-Russkie, more than that, as used, it might carry a strong connotation of unreliability. Sometimes a simplistic translation lacks the color necessary to convey meaning. I had no doubt that 'sputnik' meant 'satellite' in Russian when I first met a bleary-eyed true-believing member of the CPUSA. I also had no doubt what they meant when they referred to a certain liberal as a 'fellow traveler.'

I could dig up my old Russian-English dictionary and look up 'Satellite' and get 'Sputnik." That might indicate a 'fellow traveler of Earth, a 'fellow traveler of the party,' or any orbiting anything else.Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Name of replacement article[edit]

(was: "Waiting for Godot or My Life as an Anxious Editor")

Any word on the fate of this article? Should we plunge into lifeboat mode and try to save what we might for some other use?Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested, above, renaming it Sputnik missions. No response yet.--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The link between the missions after Sputnik 2 is tenuous at best, and completely non-existent after Sputnik 3. We don't need an article on a collection of unrelated spacecraft. I say split it between the existing articles on the spacecraft and the cultural impact of their launches. We could probably use articles on PS and Object D, but they can come later. --GW 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me there might be a set index page in this, called something like List of Sputnik missions. Then, as you say, we can split the content of this article between the other existing ones.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I still think that "Sputnik missions" implies some kind of relationship between the missions. Everything after Sputnik 3 was just a name made up by the US media/military because they didn't know what the satellite was actually called. --GW 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's the point of a set index page - there's no implication that the things are closely related except in as much as they are things of the same type that had the same name. Seems to fit this situation perfectly.--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what about this page? Merge the information into the other articles, and create just a list of Sputnik missions (or maybe List of space missions named Sputnik)?--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Again, "named" is misleading. How about just including a full list on Sputnik (disambiguation)? --GW 11:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that would distract from the other meanings of "Sputnik" on that page, and leave nowhere to provide detailed information (if we have any) explaining how and why these later mission came to be labelled "Sputnik". Is there a title for such a list that you don't consider misleading?--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • It has to be something which neither implies that it is a name or a series/programme. Sputnik (satellite) might do at a push. --GW 14:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
        • Hmm, now that to me would imply just one satellite (Sputnik 1, I suppose). I'll ask at WT:AT and the disambiguation project to see if anyone has any more ideas.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • If we no longer want one article to cover these objects, the road is AfD (or even {{db-author}}?).
  • Assuming we do want this article, why not call it List of Sputnik satellites? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I've created List of spacecraft called "Sputnik" (hopefully 'called' will be enough to reassure everyone that we don't mean their official 'names'). I don't have a source, just the existing redirects from Sputnik n, which I assume to be accurate - if someone can source/correct the list, that would be great. I think we're now in a position to eliminate this article, by taking the information to the other pages we've mentioned. We should probably also eliminate Category:Sputnik programme while we're about it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I've got rid of the Sputnik program article, and redirected its page to this one. I've also removed the quotation marks from the title, and moved this talk page here to allow any further discussions to stay in one place. --GW 11:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Good work :) What do you think about the category - should it be renamed "Sputnik", or just upmerged into Category:Soviet space program?--Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
      • I've sent it to CFD. I'm recommending deletion, I don't think we really need a category for this. An upmerge would have effectively the same result though. --GW 15:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)