Talk:Korabl-Sputnik 1

Recordings

 * " prerecorded voice communications"

What is the purpose and meaning of that? [unsigned]


 * To test space-to-ground radio systems later used by cosmonauts [unsigned]

Lost Cosmonauts
Ought there to be some mention of Heinlein’s suspicions that there was actually a live cosmonaut aboard? [unsigned]
 * No, it is definately known today that it was unmanned. A series of tests with dummies and dogs were made before the first manned flight. 71.112.91.209 18:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; there's no evidence of a live cosmonaut onboard. I'm tempted to remove the bit about lost cosmonauts completely. Mlm42 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Corrections
Should "attitude" in the last sentence be "altitude"? Or is this a correct term? [unsigned]
 * It's correct. In aviation/spaceflight, 'attitude' is which way the craft is pointing, and that is what caused the problem. 'Altitude' is, of course, how high the thing is. CFLeon (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This page gives the reentry date as 15 October 1965. Which is correct? Bastie 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question; I've explained the difference.. one date is for the Descent module, and one date is for the Equipment module (they were separated in orbit). Mlm42 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If it landed in the U.S. ....
It landed in the United States.. Specifically in the middle of a Midwestern street. Shouldn't we know pretty well whether or not there was a dummy on board or if it held a body? Cs302b (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it would have burned up in the atmosphere during reentry.. some metal chunks apparently survived, though. Anyway, by all accounts there was a dummy on board, so I see now reason to doubt this. Mlm42 (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually of a 7 ton spacecraft ~ 20 odd kg impacted. That simply is not enough to confirm or deny a darn thing.

As to Mlm42’s claim that there is no reason to doubt that it was a dummy, accounts of the reaction of soviet officers and news media inside the USSR that day tend to make it plausible the craft was manned.

Quoting—

“Vilno was not particularly interesting, but they were there on Sunday May 15 when they encountered a group of Red Army Cadets boisterously celebrating the manned launch of a Russian astronaut!

“One cadet asked if I had heard of their new spaceship? I had not, so he told me about it: it had lifted off that morning; he gave me the gross weight in kilos, the lift-off time, the period, the “apogee and perigee—“And even now,” he said, making a sweeping circle with his hands, “a Russian cosmonaut is circling the globe!” I congratulated them with a glassy smile, [and] hurried back to my hotel …27”

But suddenly, official silence fell on the subject. By evening the launch had become unmanned—the Vostok capsule being tested had carried dummies only. Reaching his hotel, Heinlein tried to get a fuller account from the Soviet Union’s main newspaper, Pravda.

No Pravda— No Pravda anywhere that day. I tried to listen to the Voice of America that evening; it was thoroughly jammed. I did listen to the Voice of Moscow, which reported a shot in exactly the same terms the Red Army cadet had used—but made no mention of the shot being manned. Later that day my InTourist guide looked me up and carefully told me that the cadet had been mistaken.28”

— end quote of source

Excerpt From Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with His Century William H. Patterson, Jr. https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/robert-a-heinlein-in-dialogue-with-his-century/id807086725?mt=11 This material may be protected by copyright.

My point is we have contemporary documentation of the USSR claiming one thing in the morning when it is politically advantageous, then the opposite hours later when the advantage is gone.

The result is not determinate. We cannot prove a man was in that capsule at launch, neither can anyone prove their was not. But we have evidence he was on the capsule. Montestruc (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Red Army Cadets yelling in the streets =/= the USSR claiming anything. Cadets were not (and are not) official spokesmen, in that Heinlein's InTourist guide was exactly right.  Mcswell (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Verification of the name at launch epoch
Internet sources say that the name the Russians use to call these craft is Korabl-Sputnik, whereas in the West, they were referred to at the time, and are still called, just Sputniks. But for the Russians to have called them Korabl-Sputniks in 1960 would have been for the Soviets to give away some of their plans for a manned spacecraft (as opposed to Laika's Sputnik 2, which was not intended to return her safely to the Earth). So what did TASS announce them as in 1960, not what the Russians call them after 1961, when Gagarin orbited the Earth? I do not have access to the paper sources of the time. What the Russians will refer to them now doesn't count. This is a question of Cold War political history, after all. 173.162.253.101 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC) [West Concord Public Library, Massachusetts, USA]
 * Off the top of my head, I'm not sure whether the name was publicly used at the time or not, however it is still better to use something real than something made up. As much as I hate anachronisms, should it be one, they are still preferable to fiction. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Russia was not the only country to launch "steerable" satellites back then, albeit steerable only in the sense of being able to pick their own point of re-entry. The American Disoverer series, first successful launch in 1959 (Discoverer 2), was also steerable in this sense.  They were designed to take photographs of things of interest to the intelligence community, presumably mostly in the USSR, and then return the film capsule to Earth.  The satellites were later known as Corona.  So the fact that these satellites were steerable had nothing to do with whether they carried humans. Mcswell (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)