Talk:R-7 Semyorka

message: The article right now gives contradictory information as to how many of these missiles were deployed.
This is not surprising as sources often contradict each other on such matters.  That's why when giving any numbers it
is always useful to provide the reference from which they were obtained.  My numbers were from reference listed below, i.e. The Kremlin's Nuclear Sword.  So, where does the information "A single launch pad was operational at Baikonur and from six to eight were in operation at Plesetsk" come from? Balcer 06:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the warhead was thermonuclear, an H-bomb, not an A-bomb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: The article states that the missile was deployed from 1959. However, the article about Sputnik 1 states that it was launched by a R-7, in 1957.
Is this deployment time supposed to include satellite launches? If so, the date should be changed.
:Fact sequence is: 
:#Development of R-7 was initiated in 1954 in OKB-1 of S.P.Korolev
:#First launches in May 1957
:#04 Oct and 03 Nov 1957 first satellites were launched using R-7.
:#The first body of troops (formation?) of ICBMs has became the "Angara" object ("combat station" photo?) of 4 launchers under the command of colonel M.G.Grigoriev. The deployment of "Angara" was completed in fall 1958.
:#The first in the USSR combat/training launch of R-7 from the "Angara" station was performed in July 1959.
:See also: , , offisial history, warhead@...
:select dates at your taste --jno 09:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the Soviets ever actually launch a missile which exploded a bomb at the end of the flight ?  Did the Americans ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong deployment time? 

message: so many derogarating words and insinuations like failure, not viable etc, the bomber would detroy it or icbm.. dugh..... the person who wrote that is just jelauous of russian achievements..the r-7 did its job just fine, its not failiure its huge success... just be happy it had never been pressed in to the service..
:I agree, in particular, section "Operational history" is not neutral by far. I've added  tag due to this. Cmapm
You wish to tell us why the 1957 five year plan anticipated purchasing 210 R-7s and eventually only six launchers were deployed? Sergei Pavlovich Korolev succeeded in building the most important launch vehicle in history under the guise of producing a weapon. The maximum number of 8K74s that the Soviet Union could have hit the USA with was 7. Then the launchers would have been glowing smoking holes in the ground. That is given the optimum situation where the extensive and prolonged preparations for launch of six missiles at once from the Pletesk base were not detected by the USA. Had they been the base would have disappered before any could be launched.
 That the Soviet Union was so desperate as to proceed with what was clearly not a very good ICBM while the USA took only slightly longer to develop and field two much more practical missiles shows just how severe the strategic imbalance between the two nations was in the 1950s. The 8K64, aka R-16, aka SS-7, aka "Saddler" was a practical offensive system as was the Atlas D and E.
One thing the 8K71 accomplished was causing hysteria in the USA which led to paranoid fantasies of a 'missile gap' and the subsequent waste of immense amounts of money by the USA in building idiotic numbers of ICBMs over the next decade.Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is ridiculous 

message: The R-7 is based on the german cluster design by Ing. Goetrupp, yet there isn't a single word on it in the article. Most of the rocket (layout, engine chambers, turbopumps, etc.) was designed by superior german engineers taken POW by the soviets. The russian missile programme was just as nazi-based as the US was with Wernher von Braun! 82.131.210.162 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not at all true.  That is a myth created recently by some German authors.  The Russians used Germans to build a replica of the V-2 (which they called the R-1) and then sent them home in the late 1940s.  Goetrupp was a radio engineer, he never designed rockets or rocket engines.  The R-7's multi-stage design was based on detailed mathematical analysis of sequential and parallel stage designs made in the early 1950s at the Keldysh institute.  DonPMitchell 16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censored article: great shame. 

message: I tried to remove some confusing and inaccurate inf. and to introduce inf. on modifications of R-7 rocket. I took specifications for 8K71PS from http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/spuk71ps.htm
And specifications for 8A91 from http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvs/spuk8a91.htm
I also corrected image caption after looking at this picture:
:Image:GPN-2002-000184.png
Cmapm 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would beware of using wade's site as a final authorality on numbers. Some of Korolev's reports are contained in Raushenbakh's biography.  Probably the best facts and figures are compiled in the book _Bolshoi Kosmichesky Klub_, recently compiled by Afanasiev.  There are huge problems with the data in this wikipedia article, including some conversions to pound units based on British ton defintion (all "tons" are metric, 1000 kg). DonPMitchell (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifications

message: The Stage-0 boosters for the Sputnik (first spec set) are listed as weighing 3.400 g(rams?).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight correction 

message: "within the Soviet Union <it was known> by the GRAU index 8K71"
The phrase is misleading, it conveys the sense of public knowledge, and in reality it was quite opposite: GRAU codes, by default, were strictly for military use, they were never pronounced on TV, in open press etc. I don't know how to put it correctly - the few 1970s (public) books I have on hand simply don't name it at all. NVO (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Known as ... what?

message: "For the first time in the history of the development of the conceptual design firm Sergei Pavlovich Korolev was created, received the room volume № 14. This volume was developed under the leadership of the Arcady Ilyich Ostashev and devoted to the organization of test missiles." These two sentences make no sense in English. How was Sergei Pavlovich Korolev "created"? What is a "room volume" or "volume"? Autodidact1 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please rewrite these two incomprehensible sentences 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on R-7 Semyorka. 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/20120921003453/http://www.eucom.mil/article/23076/this-week-in-eucom-history-february-6-12-1959 to http://www.eucom.mil/article/23076/this-week-in-eucom-history-february-6-12-1959
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708233403/http://data-freeway.com/plesetsk/bsemyorka_8.htm to http://data-freeway.com/plesetsk/bsemyorka_8.htm
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) 08:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The latest change as of now (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R-7_Semyorka&oldid=1175306983) appears to be a mix of German translation of portions of the text, alongside annotations that are either ungrammatical or appear to be unintentional. There are also a few material changes, though - mentioning Angara where previously only Plesetsk was mentioned, changing some link targets slightly, stating that the R-7 was in operation in Kourou and the US, and including derivative launchers in the family as being R-7s. There's also something I'll charitably fail to parse, stating that the 'V8' was developed to reach Moscow among other places, and also a mention of Fokke-Wulf.
Some parts of this change may be valid edits, but to me it seems it needs enough cleanup to be worth reverting and trying again. Is this sensible? Moopli (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert? 

message: The reference links to Encyclopedia Astronautica (deleted by @Ilenart626 in August 2023 as "unreliable") (see diff was restored because the RfC for the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica concluded that "there appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource". In fact, this presentation is much more detailed than Siddiqi's. So far no specific errors were addressed for the items linked to this article. Siddiqi (2000) was kept as a reference for the first fully successful launch in August 1957 because this fact is somewhat hidden in Encyclopedia Astronautica. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @SchmiAlf has misrepresented the rfc, which concluded “There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but which lacks editorial oversight, contains errors and is no longer updated…caution needs to taken in using the source.” The rfc found that  no consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply on the reliability of the site, which includes “It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question.” Given the issues with this source I am reverting SchmiAlf's change pending consensus for inclusion.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored reference link to Encyclopedia Astronautica 

message: Have performed a fairly major update of the article, including additional references.  Therefore have removed the “needs citations” templates from the article.Ilenart626 (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major update