Talk:Sputnik 1/Archive 1

Feedback Section Incoherant
Literal meaning of 'sputnik' - 'co-pather'. 'Pather' is not an english word. 'co-traveller' makes more sense to me, but not being a russian speaker, I don't want to change it. Is there a better translation that is actually in english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.233.126 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I can't understand a word of the Feedback section of the article. It seems to imply that the U.S. are still watching the satellite, amongst other things. Can someone please rewrite it? 83.70.178.165 22:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and first of all it needs to be renamed to something like "tracking" or "visual observations". But I'm going to add data on Sputnik 1 in the chronological sequence, and would fix this only when I come to it. If someone could do fixes earlier, they are welcome. Cmapm 23:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone fix the table and nonsense text on the top of the page? I can't seem to find it to remove it.--193.195.185.254 14:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

- 100 km is not equal 150 miles -- Vassili Nikolaev

Very true. I'll take whichever was listed first in the page's history and adjust the other. &mdash; Toby 11:10 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

---

I've cut "had a size about that of a basketball" because it assumes the reader has knowledge of what a basketball is (and the basketball article doesn't actually say how big one is until a page down or so). Far too many things on Wikipedia assume the reader is familiar with US culture. -- Tarquin 13:55 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm ... On the other hand, US culture is so widely known (in order not to offend my US friends, I'm resisting the temptation to say "so damn widely known") that most people probably do know how big a basketball is, certainly most people who can read English and access a computer to visit Wikipedia with. And "about the size of a basketball" is clear and easily understood, where "a diameter of 27.6cm" (or whatever size it was) is less so.


 * Perhaps we could say "about the size of a soccer ball" instead. (Tannin hears Mintguy coming, sees big stick, runs for cover.)

perhaps just give a diameter, maybe the reader will rather think of it as a small pumpkin or a large melon. Susan Mason


 * let's give a diameter and link it to an orders of magnitude page. Those pages then give a variety of comparisons. Readers are invited to own a ruler. ;-) -- Tarquin 17:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC) (remember that we may also one day produce paper versions of Wikipedia, which may go to places where US culture does not reach. Tarquin Goes to wash his mouth out for using the words "US" and "culture" together... ;-) )

Sputnik-1 was not the size of a soccer ball, it was 58 cm, about two feet in diameter! So you understand why Khrushchev laughed at Vanguard-1 and called it a "grapefruit".


 * Centimeters! I'm shocked! It's an astronomical body, it should be measured in suitable units, such as 3.67x10-12 AUs... ;) Trekphiler 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (BTW, I've read it was about 55cm [! Shame on me!])

---

The article seems to be full of inconsistencies, it states that Sputnik 1 burned upon reentry on Jan 3 1958, then it states that it's orbit started to decay starting on Jan 4 1958 and then stayed in this declining orbit for almost a year and in Dec 9 1958 it was orbiting 600 km above the earth instead of the original 947 km. Then it says Sputnik 1 fell back to earth Jan 4 1958. So one case states reentry on Jan 3, and another on Jan 4 1958. The third one states that on Jan 4 1958 Sputnik's orbit merely started decaying and has no further reference on when it actually crashed. When trying to find several sites for sources I got conflicting reports as well, so far these are the 4 I have found.

-incinerated upon reentry Jan 3 1958

-incinerated upon reentry Jan 4 1958

-on Jan 4 1958 Sputnik's orbit started to decay (reached 600 km alltitude on Dec 9 1958 but no further mention of it's faith)

-incinerated upon reentry after 844 days in space

It seems the several sites on the Sputnik can't be trusted for information on the Sputnik 1, how de we proceed to get the right answers in the article, I'm yet a amateur wikipedian and not sure about the procedures on these matters. --Jimius 16:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: the weight/mass issue, as far as I have been taught in my A-Level Physics course, Sputnik still had a weight. It just provides the centripetal force for the orbit rather than pulling the satellite to the ground. It seems to me that this comment is just plain wrong... Drw25 21:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * but isn't the equation for centripetal force f= m(v2/r? that doesn't include weight only mass. (ok so physics is really not my area)Geni 23:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed - the force in question (F) is the weight of the satellite, which provides the centripetal force. Drw25 15:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we look at Weight it defeines weight as "the force exerted upon an object by virtue of its position in a gravitational field". The force in the equation is the centripetal force (which is why it should be writen Fcentripetal)Geni 16:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But a satellite is still in the gravitational field of the earth and consequently a force still acts:

The gravitational attraction between two bodies (ie. weight of one body in the other's gravitational field) is given by the equation mg=GMm/(r^2) where m and M are the masses of the two bodies, G is the gravitational constant and r is the distance between the two bodies - if you put numbers into these equations, it's pretty clear that the weight of a satellite is very significant at its radius orbit. This force provides the centripetal force for the orbit to occur. The centripetal force is not present because circular motion occurs, the circular motion occurs because the centripetal force is present. Centripetal force is a cause, not a consequence. Drw25 17:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * but doesn't that equation assume that the two objects are statick? the sputnik was in free fall.

---

"Caught the West by surprise" is a common description of Sputnik, but something of an oversimplification -- after all, it was part of the International Geophysical Year and the Soviets had announced their intent years in advance. I plan to throw in mention of IGY and expand the article (particularly the space race paragraph) with a bit more detail on splits in the political and popular reaction in the US, but I know very little about the reaction outside of America. Can anyone advise on the reactions elsewhere in the West before I try to change that sentence to something more nuanced? --Ambyr 21:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As Ambyr has pointed out, this seems to be oversimplification. Over a year before Sputink was launched, the SAO initiated Operation MOONWATCH with the specific goal of tracking these satellites (as I type these words, vintage July and October 1956 issues of "Sky & Telescope" sit next to my desk...). While there was probably little doubt that someone was bound to launch a satellite during IGY, I think the Russian accomplishment was played for all it was worth, especially when it was discovered that what many people were assuming was Sputnik was actually the booster which would orbit for some weeks.VagabondAstronomer 22:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Project Vanguard
The article is very sketchy where it talks about Project Vanguard. First off, it says that the Soviets "read" about Project Vanguard before they launched Sputnik; when was this, and was this information in the press, or was it acquired via espionage? Second, this sentence doesn't parse: "...when the Soviets read that the American Project Vanguard had two satellite designs, a small one which was just to see if they could get something into orbit, the Soviets decided to have what translates as the 'Simplest Satellite' too, one which was one centimeter larger in diameter, and much heavier, than Vanguard's 'real' satellite." So this means that Vanguard was plotting both a small, simple satellite, and a larger one, I take it. It definitely needs to be rephrased for clarity. Indeed, someone who knows more on the subject could create an entire section of the article dedicated to the Sputnik project's relationship to Project Vanguard. --LostLeviathan 08:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Both Sputnik and Vanguard were publically announced years in advance, as they were planned parts of the International Geophysical Year (see http://www.nas.edu/history/igy/). I can't help you with the second bit, though - my interest is strictly in the politics, not the engineering. --Ambyr 12:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the Russians announced Sputnik-1 in advance. The Americans accounced their intentions as early as 1955, but the Russians were very secretive about their R-7 ICBM project. I see no Russian pre-announcment documents listed in the NASA history page on this subject ( http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/index.html ). DonPMitchell 23:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ogg audio
OK, I understand .ogg format is uber-politically-correct, but can we put an audio file here that people can actually listen to with software they really have?
 * you must be new here... --129.173.105.28 00:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Audio recordings
I added two links to authentic recordings of the Sputnik-1 signal. The first was made by an unknown German ham-radio operator. The second was recorded near Washington DC.

There are two commonly seen fake signals, one is very loud and obviously synthesized. The other is on NSSDC/NASA's website and seems to be a recording of some other pulse-duration-modulated signal (it has a long syncronization tone followed by about a dozen variable-length tones). That cannot be Sputnik-1, 2 or 3, so I don't know where it comes from. DonPMitchell 19:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidently, I don't know if the ogg recording of sputnik on the page is fake or not, because I don't have any software that can play it. Is that a linux-only format of some kind?  Maybe there should be a note next to it about how to play the sound. DonPMitchell 17:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with .ogg format on my Windows machine, that file was taken from NASA website, see information about it here. By the way, the Soviet official record, exists in the Gosteleradio fund (see its mention and its entry in the catalog). Theoretically its electronic version can be bought there Cmapm 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ogg Vorbis is not an OS-specific format. Codecs are available for all major and most minor operating systems to play it. See Media help for more info and installation instructions. int19h 10:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ogg-snobbery makes me want to kick something! Puhleeeeze folks, absolutely everybody and their aunty is equipped for mp3. for every gazillion people who have an mp3 player, maybe 2 have ever even heard of ogg! Roger 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References
Would it be appropriate to mention various references that Sputnik has, such as it's major reference in the motion picture "October Sky?" Suamme1 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Within the confines of this article is a cultural reference, albeit in subterfuge. The reference to the fragments found in California in December, 1957 almost amounts to an ad. The remains found, while resembling those parts shown in the Soviet era magazine, for one do not match the diameter of the satellite (being closer to 50cm from what I can tell). The plastic components in the Soviet magazine article represent the outer shell of the spacecraft, not actual parts. Also, plastic doesn't fair very well on reentry. Pause to wonder.VagabondAstronomer 22:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds of Sputnik
The NASA recording of the sputnik signal is bogus. I added an authentic recording in the external links section, made by a German ham radio operator. This is the second attempt to do this, as someone removed the link before. I removed the bogus audio link, because I suspect the real one was removed by someone who just thought it was redundant. There is no reason to retain a recording that is known to not be Sputnik-1. DonPMitchell 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sputnik-1 produced a very simple signal of 0.3 second tone followed by a 0.3 second pause. In the event of a drop in internal pressure (a micrometeorite puncture, for example), it was designed to switch to a faster pulsing rate, but that did not occur. This is documented in memos written by Sergey Korolev, and can be found in the biography by Boris Raushenbakh.

The bogus signal at NSSDC/NASA is some other more complex pulse-duration signal with a long sync tone followed by a series of variable length tones. This is definately not from Sputnik-1.


 * I've added a link to an article at the website of Voice of Russia. It contains three Russian recordings of the signal. Cmapm 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish the links I installed had not been removed. The Voice of Russia recordings (the three files are identical by the way) might be real, but if so it is sped up enormously.  More likely it is just some other random satellite.  So this article now has no link to a real signal of Sputnik.  This is the second time a link to the real satellite signal has been deleted, so I give up...  DonPMitchell 04:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have installed three authentic seperate recordings of Sputnik-1. Let us hope we can not have these deleted again. Cmapm, I believe the recordings on Voice of Russia are misidentified and possibly Sputnik-2. They are much too fast to be Sputnik-1, but they sounds similar to Sven Grahan's recording of Sputnik-2.

If folks have other recordings, please add them, and please do not delete all the other links to other recordings. DonPMitchell 19:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The authentic recordings are clearly different from the NASA website fake one... Then, why keep the fake one in the "media box" ?? 88.165.135.224 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * because inevitably, someone will link it as an "authentic" recording, it is so widely used in news articles. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, I see what you mean. Let's keep the external links, including the "fake" recording that NASA publishes.  But you mean the .ogg file that is in the special box in the article?  I don't know what that is because I can't play .ogg format files.  If it is the fake signal, it should be deleted, but someone will put it back again most likely.  DonPMitchell (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When was Sputnik-1 Launched?
NASA's NSSDC site lists the time of Sputnik-1 launch as 19:12 UTC. Russian sources (Boris Chertok's book) states it was launched at 22:28 Moscow time (19:28 UTC). Chertok is very careful and accurate about his facts in general, so it would be interesting to check some more sources to resolve this 16 minute discrepancy. DonPMitchell 21:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Jonathan McDowell's list entry says it was launched on 19:28:34 UTC - here is the link. The same time is given here and here. This is not the first NASA's error - I corrected another one a long ago, see Talk:Luna 2. Cmapm 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe 19:28:34 is correct. The original reference comes from Vladimir Poroshkov's chronology of Baikonur, a first-hand account using official records. DonPMitchell (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sput)nitpick : Was it 19:28:34 UTC or 19:28:34 GMT ? --Jeremie 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Use UTC on Wikipedia - I dunno why, we just do. Roger (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Article structure
We have a few featured articles (Apollo 8, Hubble Space Telescope) and good articles (Apollo 11, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) on spacecrafts for now. And I believe, we should take their structure into account for the improvement of this article.

Probably the most suitable example to rely on for "Sputnik 1" is Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. As compared to MRS, "Sputnik 1" is currently missing "Prior to launch" and "Launch and orbital insertion" sections. Hence, before the expansion of other sections, I think we should create something similar to these two sections. Perhaps I'll try to collect and add related inf. myself in the future. Cmapm 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik wasn't first in space
The following paragraph was recently removed from the article:

"While Sputnik 1 is widely believed to have been the first man-made object in space, this is not true. In 1946, a V2 rocket was launched from White Sands Missile Range on a sub-orbital trajectory to an altitude of 173 kilometers. (citation requested can be found: http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2006/october-november/FEATURE-FirstPhoto.php), well beyond the 100km altitude generally considered to be the border of space (see Kármán line). The experiment also returned the first images of Earth to be taken from space."

The justification given was that it's not widely believed that Sputnik was first in space. I for one had believed it, and I think a lot of others do as well, especially those who aren't space buffs. I think it's worth including this paragraph. What do others think? (Re-added with cleaned-up ref pending discussion.) --R27182818 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is good point. I am also not sure that Sputnik 1 was widely believed to .... It might be better not to remove whole paragraph, but to change first sentence to something like "It is not widely known that first first man-made object in space was launched more than 20 years before Sputnik 1". --Li-sung 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, guys, you are welcomed to present here all the info on the first space penetration (which by the way appears to be first accomplished by the Germans in 1944, not the U.S. in 1946, see Timeline of space exploration), info on 1946 performance by first animals - the fruit flies from the U.S. etc. etc. etc. and make this the "best" article ever. But in this case you'll not see even a single word added by me in this article any more. I'll return to work on this article only when I see it making steps towards the featured article as I understand it, with at least the lead section concentrated on its main subject - Sputnik 1. Cmapm 00:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Cmapm, there was no intent to drive you away from the article, and I'm sorry if you feel that way. Any collaborative effort will have disagreements. And regarding your edit comment ("'you' doesn't mean 'widely', anyway feel free to bring this "article" to featured article standards yourself from now on :)"), I know that "you" doesn't mean "widely". However, I am an exemplar and therefore it seems reasonable to consider the existence of other exemplars -- my own impression is that many folks do believe that Sputnik was first. --R27182818 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know from the first hand experience that it is widely believed in USA that the first space station was SkyLab. However, the article on SkyLab does not dismiss this "wide belief" with a similar paragraph on Salyut. Why this article should be any different? (Igny 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC))


 * I agree that this article shouldn't be different -- perhaps SkyLab should include a similar paragraph? IMO, correction of widely held myths is proper encyclopedic content. --R27182818 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * there is record on http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v2cology.htm :
 * 1944 Jun - Launch Site: Peenemuende. Launch Vehicle: V-2. Model: V-2. Vertical test mission Nation: Germany. Agency: Wehrmacht. Apogee: 176 km (109 mi). During the war there were some vertical shots of the missile to test its stability and behaviour in a vacuum. The precise dates were not recorded, but these became the first manmade objects to reach what was later defined as outer space (over 100 km altitude). References: 727.  So really year 1944. --Li-sung 08:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing that, this is much better, and I'll do my best to add more inf. into this article in the future. As a minor side note, from my personal FA related experience, some people don't see "Trivia" sections in articles acceptable and suggest information in them to be incorporated into an existing section. But the article is too stubby for that now, perhaps we should think of it only when someone opposes to "Trivia" section's existence. Cmapm 18:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I recommend the removal of the trivia section. It's not interesting to compare a sounding rocket to the first orbital flight. This makes it sound like the Germans beat the Russians to space, which is a sort of revisionist propaganda. DonPMitchell 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do realize this discussion has been a bit dead for some time now, nevertheless I believe that it is important to note that Sputnik wasn't the first object in space as it is difficult to find this information elsewhere (than this talk page). I don't believe it would have much to do with propaganda as much as general trivia. Also, I imagine this german object fell back down to Earth, which could be argued if it's relevant given the arbitrary-ness of the 100Km limit, so according to this the first man made object know to leave Earth (for good) is a manhole cover. I believe this is interesting and should be placed here somehow (maybe in the timeline, will comment there). Should we vote? or should we just add it? JunCTionS 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * After reading over the article, the comment by JunCTionS appears to be a valid criticism. This article should probably include a "Context of Sputnik" section (or something similar) which would summarize and link to Spaceflight. (sdsds - talk) 02:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The story of the manhole cover being launched into space is pure conjecture, since it was not observed or tracked and may simply have been vaporized or just tossed a mile or two into the air. It's a myth, essentially.  DonPMitchell (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just love this...
In every scientific or technological article that may suggest that the soviets or any other nation had the edge somewhere, there are many subtle and not so subtle jabs to try and degrade the achievement. Just an observation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.142.45 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
 * That is Mob Psychology-101; Chapter 2: National pride; Excersise 10: Degrade others' achievements. (Igny 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC))


 * so wtf is your point? let me guess.. you are a leftist liberal?
 * i was born and raised in ussr and let me assure you - the same is true about russians, only where is americans are much more open hearted, russians most of them are very mean spirited --KpoT (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

very poor order and a lot of repeats
I have read the article to translate it to hebrew. a lot of repeats and the order is very strange. Avibliz 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC) (my talk page in hebrew wikipedia]

New claims by Sputnik creators
The AP article by Isachenkov (the link I just added to the page) has new claims by the creators of Sputnik that could be integrated into the article. Guanxi 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is OK, but not particularly special. For example, he says Laika died after a week, which is very out-of-date information.  We know today that she died after 4 or 5 hours.  DonPMitchell 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Visibility
I keep hearing that during the so-called Sputnick Crisis, Americans would watch the satellite flying overhead. If so, then why is the sky not full of little speckles, considering how many thousands of satellites there are now? Sputnik was not particularly large, even. I assume that a telescope or binoculars were necessary, as indicated by the Moonwatch article. The article also mentions something about sunrise and sunset, but no details. Does that mean it could only be seen when it was low in the sky at sunrise or sunset, thus reflecting sunlight to the viewer? And does this mean, whatever the answer to the above questions, that under the same conditions we can also see hundreds of other satellites?

Please try to work this information into the article, or if you don't feel like it, just answer and I will try to. Twilight Realm 21:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To address your questions roughly in order, TR. ..

1 Yes, hundreds of amateur astronomers in the USA, Europe, Japan etc observed Sputnik 1 (and many subsequent satellites) in Operation Moonwatch, organised by Fred L Whipple of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. (There is an excellent article about this, 'Project Moonwatch' by Christine Pulliam in the current (October 2007) issue of Sky & Telescope, pp 30-35.)

2 The sky is "full of little speckles"; nowadays a patient naked-eye observer at a reasonably dark site can usually see a dozen or two, and with binoculars or a wide-field telescope dozens more, per hour on most (clear) nights.

3 Sputnik 1 itself was, I believe, only just visible to the naked eye (though the 3rd stage of its launch rocket, also orbiting, was brighter) and most Operation Moonwatch observers used small telescopes to make the accurate positional observations required. It was of course designed to be visible, so that accurate visual tracking would give information about its orbit, and therefore about the effects of Earth's atmosphere and gravitational field on it. Many modern satellites are of course considerably larger and brighter.

4 In order for a given satellite to be seen, it must be in sunlight and the observer in darkness. The extent to which this applies varies with the observer's lattitude, the time of night, and the season of the year as well as with the satellites altitude and orbital inclination. (For more authoritative detail, see the article 'Spotting Sputniks' by J Kelly Beatty on pp 76-80 of the same October 2007 issue of Sky & Telescope.)

5 So yes, we can indeed now see hundreds of other satellites. There are various websites from which one can find out when various satellites will be visible from any given location on Earth.

Sorry not to incorporate this myself, but I'm not yet up to Wiki-speed, and I'm also typing this in surreptitiously at work. I hope to become a more active contributor in a couple of months or so, after my job becomes redundant. 40.0.96.1 11:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong eccentricity
According to the infobox the eccentricity for the orbit is .05 (almost circular) but the orbit is 939x215 km (very elliptical). Using the equation from the Orbital eccentricity article I calculate an eccentricity of ~.627 which seems more appropriate. I left the box as it is for now as I don't know whether the orbital dimensions are wrong, or if it is the eccentricity which is wrong. If someone knows for sure, and better yet has a source for it, that would be great. -AndrewBuck 06:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to measure from the Earth's centre. Highest altitude was 939 km above the Earth's surface, so the oribit's apogee would have been (approximately) 6371 + 939 with a perigee of 6371 + 215, which is not far off circular. I make e = (7310 - 6586) / (7310 + 6586) or 0.0521. Close to the 0.05201 in the infobox.-Wikianon 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you for clearing that up. -AndrewBuck 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sputnik 50th Anniversary Google Doodle & US Controversery


On the 50th Anniversary, Google did a a special logo for sputnik. This decision has created some controversy with conveservitive commentators in the United States. The conservatives felt it is improper and "un-American" for Google to " honor an achievement by a totalitarian regime that was [America's] Cold War enemy." Tweaks send Google critics into orbit; Google's Sputnik salute angers some conservatives;Conservatives Blast Google's Logo Doodles. Should this controversy be mentioned in the main article? Jvsett 05:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is more Google controversy then Sputnik. Try Google search. Google changes logo often, so there can be in future more controversies. --Li-sung 09:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Suborbital, orbital, travel into outer space
Upon further review, I realize that I was mistaken to assume that Sputnik was the first craft into outer space. Nonetheless, I am leaving the language as written, since earlier forays into outer space (such as the V-2) were not satellites (which requires orbit). Unschool (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of technology, rocket power, and strategic importance; the V-2 vertical flight is vastly less significant. If this information is added, and believe it is not relevant to this article, then it must be worded very carefully to not give a false impression to non-expert readers.  The V-2 flight did not "beat Sputnik", the Americans did not "beat the Russians to space".  There cannot be any such revisionist or nationalistic rhetoric.  DonPMitchell (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime Detection?
Why does this forward to the Nintendo Gamecube game? Has the page been vandalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.244.76 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sputnik's main objective was?...
What was actual main objective of Sputnik? Why is it not stated anywhere in the article? --KpoT (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be. The simple fact that it was up there in orbit. Surely that is totally obvious? Roger (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding re-entry removal
I noticed that the controversy surrounding re-entry section sets of alarms as being obviously false. I'm removing it as per [WB:Bold]. In short the story has only one source that looks like a blog and the story if full of holes. First the if this was advertised on a radio stations is presumable there would of been media attention when he found the parts. Second the fact that they were glowing when if found them is probably physically impossible, also they show now evidence of damage or scorching from reentry that one would expect. Also I don't see how they could have been found under a tree, I expect the tree would stop the falling parts, and the odds of all the parts falling in one neat pile is laughable. (when the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up it's parts were scattered across *three states*). Not to mention that they would be all of the parts from one of the few photos released of sputnik. Finally the government's behavior is very unrealistic, if they were actually advertising a reward I see no reason to go back on that, They have more then enough money to cover it. Also, the fact that after this guy was able to get the stuff back is crazy, if it was actually of interest to the government then it wouldn't have given it back and when they came looking for it again as the source states they "wouldn't have been asking".Lotu (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Organization: Council of Ministers"
I would highly doubt that the USSR cabinet had any direct role in organizing this event. The Council of Ministers and the CPSU Central Committee were involved in almost every big-ticket item in the USSR at that time, a lot of the time in name only. Sovmin and the TsK KPSS made various communiques, statements etc on almost every topic and I see no reason why this is any different. In that light, when the article states "the Council of Ministers of the USSR approved practical work" and that "The decision to build it was made by the CPSU Central Committee and the Council of Ministers of the USSR" it does not mean that they were the ones making day-to-day decisions on the progress of the project.

The organization of the USSR's space efforts was quite different to that of the USA, and cannot be fit into the US's NASA/"Space Tsar" type model. 118.90.2.13 (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Council of Ministers didn't originate the project, but it had to approve the budget and grant permission to proceed to major stages. That was generally true of all major activity in the USSR. DonPMitchell (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

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.  Cra sh  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)

Sputnik translated meaning
Maybe someone should add that "sputnik' translated from Russian means literally "fellow traveler". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.242.81 (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Impact" section
Removed the inverted commas around the words "great accomplishment" in "Impact" section. No, really, does anyone here honestly think that launching the world's first artificial satellite and starting the Space Age isn't a great achievement? Absolutely no matter what launching such a satellite means now. Speaking about the facts described in the section, the fact that the world's reaction greatly surpassed the expectations of both US and USSR governments only serves to prove the importance of this event. It's value will transcend currently existing nations as it had transcended the existence of USSR. 37.144.167.137 (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Media file
Why does this article link to ? The description there specifically states, "This is not the Sputnik-1 signal. [...] Please don't link this into the article on Sputnik-1. It is not Sputnik-2 or 3 either, so nobody really knows what it is. It does appear to be some kind of PDM signal, maybe from a Soviet spacecraft." Shouldn't this link (and many others listed on the File: page at Commons) be removed? - dcljr (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (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)


 * Perhaps related to this, I'm wondering how Sputnik achieved 1440 orbits (as currently stated in the infobox). The NASA NSSDC site says "around 1400 orbits". At 96.2 minutes per orbit, and 92 days in orbit (Oct 4-Jan 4), there should be around 1377 orbits. Does orbital period decrease significantly as orbit starts to decay? I'm changing the infobox figure to 1400 (close enough to 1377, and sourced by NSSDC).Plantdrew (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kepler's third law: the square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. Or in other words: yes, the orbital period decreases as the orbit decays.  86.153.28.37 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

anachronistic UTC
The launch date is reported as "4 October 1957, 19:28:34 UTC", which is nonsensical because UTC doesn't exist for dates prior to 1961. In that era, precise timekeeping was mostly referenced to UT2, so that's probably the basis for the recorded "19:28:34". But when reporting with a resolution as coarse as whole seconds it's mostly meaningless to distinguish at all between flavours of Universal Time. It would be most sensible to use the initialism "UT".

2001:8B0:80D:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Visibility of Sputnik I
The article currently states "It was visible all around the Earth and its radio pulses were detectable." However, Sputnik I itself was quite dim around magnitude 5 and could not be seen from most areas of Earth especially in cities. The top stage of the R7 rocket did get carried into orbit with Sputnik though, and it traveled behind the satellite in the sky. Anecdotal evidence proves this booster stage was visible, and predictions were printed in newspapers about when to see this object. I think this factoid should be added to reflect the fact Sputnik itself was not visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.77.226 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Telescopes? It is not stated that it would have been visible to the naked eye. The inclination suggests it might have been invisible close to the poles, but I think that is not the point. --mfb (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060216013800/http://www.space.com:80/missionlaunches/sputnik_45th_anniversary_021004.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sputnik_45th_anniversary_021004.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the following external links on 26 Dec 2015, perhaps too hastily; retaining them here for a second look:


 * "Testing of rocket and space technology - the business of my life" Events and facts - A.I. Ostashev, Korolev, 2001.. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Testing of rocket and space technology - the business of my life" Events and facts - A.I. Ostashev, Korolev, 2001.. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070903073846/http://www.okbmei.ru:80/upage.html?id=30 to http://www.okbmei.ru/upage.html?id=30
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928015200/http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm to http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121115130922/http://www.eer-magazine.com/ru/5791.html to http://www.eer-magazine.com/ru/5791.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011023458/http://www.arrl.org:80/news/features/2007/09/28/03/ to http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2007/09/28/03/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927180255/http://www.tecnocosmos.com/archivo/1957/1957001b.htm to http://www.tecnocosmos.com/archivo/1957/1957001b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080408193149/http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_001.jpg to http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_001.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928015200/http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm to http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071025181508/http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_007.jpg to http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_007.jpg
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080408030050/http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru:80/bibl/ziv/2002/5-kak-zap.html to http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/ziv/2002/5-kak-zap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928015200/http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm to http://www.missiles.ru/VPK-missiles-Tikhonov.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408193139/http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_025.jpg to http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_025.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025181508/http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_007.jpg to http://rgantd.ru/vzal/korolev/pics/015_007.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408030050/http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/ziv/2002/5-kak-zap.html to http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/ziv/2002/5-kak-zap.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526215946/https://mnweekly.ru/news/20071004/55280383.html to http://www.mnweekly.ru/news/20071004/55280383.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Beep
Soundfile with "Sputnik beep" in the article comes from "soundcloud.com", which is not NASA website. It may be a fake. 188.69.194.33 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, an external link to authentic recordings of the Sputnik signal, published by Don Mitchell on his website Mentallandscape.com should not be removed. 188.69.194.33 (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Burned up on re-entry
Though it may not be an "important" piece of information, over what part of the Earth did Sputnik re-enter & burn up?

Is this information even findable?

Given that battery power and communications had stopped before the re-entry, I doubt that the Soviets had any control over Sputnik and where it would re-enter and burn up.

Weren't there any worries or conspiracy theories?

Just curious, and I think other people might also be. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2010/4/2010_4_88.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018165625/http://rgantd.ru/book_2.php?link=mozjorin to http://rgantd.ru/book_2.php?link=mozjorin
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202151610/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/sputnik1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/sputnik1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110916051640/http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/SpaceAge/index.html to http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/SpaceAge/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sputnik 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219184722/http://www.pnp.ru/chapters/events/events_4378.html to http://www.pnp.ru/chapters/events/events_4378.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015051521/http://www.darpa.mil/history.html to http://www.darpa.mil/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229002652/http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5584 to http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5584

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting Data (Completed Orbits)
Up on the top of the page it says that Sputnik completed 1350 orbits before decaying. Lower down in the page in the Launch and Mission Section it's written that there were 1440 completed orbits.
 * It is not really known how long Sputnik remained in orbit. After the easily-visible rocket stage fell, the extremely faint satellite itself was difficult to visually track.  The Soviets lost track of it after 1440 orbits and declared it was gone, but radio ionization tracking indicated that it remained in orbit for quite a while after that.  DonPMitchell (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

GA work
The article is a bit far from GA as it is; the cleanup tag notwithstanding, there are a lot of paragraphs that are uncited. I recommend you try to get them cited before someone picks up the review, or else it might fail a little quickly.  Kees08  (Talk)   08:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Italics
There seems to be some confusion as to the proper formatting of the name. Most occurrences in this article are in normal type, but some are italicized. Which is correct?--Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it should be italicized according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Titles. See MOS:T Section 1.2. Names of ships, including spaceships, should be italicized. Popular Outcast  talk2me 18:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , should mentions of Sputnik and Sputnik 1 be in italics? --- Coffee  and crumbs  01:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sputnik 1 should be in italics. When referring to the Sputnik rocket, Sputnik should not be italicized. When referring to the Sputnik satellite program, it should not be italicized. When referring to Sputnik 1 (or any of the others), and shortened to Sputnik, it should be italicized.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)