Talk:Korabl-Sputnik 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Lost Cosmonauts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Corrections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  If it landed in the U.S. .... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verification of the name at launch epoch