Talk:List of spacecraft called Sputnik

message: 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)
replies: text: This 50th anniversary Newsweek article claims that the U.S. was shocked by the launch is a myth  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Fiftieth anniversary coming up 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pic of the Sputnik Arming Key

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense vs. Notability 

message: Why is he here?
*  muttnik 
*  Kudryavka 
*  sputnik 
*  Henry_Ford 
*  communist_satellite 
*  wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Wiki_editor_DonFphrnqTaub_Persina 
* 
* < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=_sputnik_&diff=331511275&oldid=331107334 >.
 hopiakuta   Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[ Henry_Ford ]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meaning of the word "sputnik" 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  The Problems Mentioned 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Basic Problem With This Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sputnik suits me. --GW… 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming  

message: Is this page still just 'Start Class'? If not, what need be addressed?70.241.19.66 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quality Assessment 

message: 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)
replies: text: говорятMark Lincoln (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nonsense meaning of the word "sputnik" 

message: (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)
replies: text: Well, I've suggested, above, renaming it Sputnik missions. No response yet.--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name of replacement article 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Sputnik. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 7#Sputnik until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sputnik" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]