Talk:Space Race - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 204.15.72.92 (talk) at 10:14, 7 July 2022 (→NPOV issues). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:14, 7 July 2022 by 204.15.72.92 (talk) (→NPOV issues)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space Race article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

view · edit Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Should this article be expanded to reflect the "ongoing space race" engaged in by Asian and other nations? (No.) No, for exactly the same reason that American Civil War should not be expanded to include the 1960-1996 Guatemalan Civil War. The scope of this article concerns an era of history during the Cold War when the United States competed with the Soviet Union for preeminence in space exploration. It ended by the time of the Soviet Union's collapse and the end of the Cold War. Subsequent space programs developed by other nations therefore cannot be a part of it, despite journalists' attempts to re-use the term. Misplaced Pages should cover topics in their proper historical perspective, and their timeless facets recognized by Misplaced Pages consensus should not be muddled or diffused by recent events; see WP:Recentism, Latter-day space programs should be covered in other articles. Shouldn't this article say that the Soviet Union or the United States won the space race? (No.) No, for the following reasons:

It was not literally a "race", with the sole objective being to achieve milestones first. It was a competition with the goal of demonstrating mastery of spaceflight technology. While the USSR appeared to "win" early on by being the first to launch a satellite, a human, solo flights of several days duration, the first multi-person crew, and the first spacewalk, the US was soon able to do the same things, and this did not actually prove that one nation's technology was superior to the other's.
The USSR soon lost this lead because they had cut corners to turn Vostok into Voskhod and had to cancel this program after only two flights. Meanwhile, the US Gemini program caught up with long duration flights, the ability to rendezvous and dock two craft in orbit, and demonstrating the ability to do useful work outside the spacecraft without tiring. By any objective measure, this switched the advantage to the US.
The USSR made the mistake of not developing either large rocket engines or more efficient liquid hydrogen-fueled rockets until much later than the US, and therefore failed to develop a super-heavy lift launch vehicle required for human lunar flight before the US. The US met its goal of landing humans safely on the Moon in 1969, which historians recognize worldwide as a superior achievement to those of the USSR.
Conversely, despite American achievements on the Moon, the USSR was still able to launch the first space station. In essence, the space "race" concluded with a "tie," as both nations achieved feats of technological mastery and exploration that significantly improved humanity's understanding of the cosmos.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Space Race is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 1, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 2, 2004	Peer review	Reviewed
January 14, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 29, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 14, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 30, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
July 26, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
October 20, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight Top‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cold War High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Soviet Union: History High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education / History High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

Text and/or other creative content from Space Race was copied or moved into History of spaceflight with . The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

It is requested that a photograph of the Soyuz 1 crash be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

To-do list for Space Race: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2021-06-07

infobox details

Hi Mr. Justin @JustinTime55:, so I guess we've gotta continue our discussion on the infobox. I do think that my infobox is alright, and you said "Obviously no reasoning with Halo FC", though I think I did always try to address to your points. Anyway, you could remember why you even started this, because you were concerned about the GA, and I took that into account too, and now the reviewer has said that it's alright, and you got you wanted, it's all good

Anyway, if you still wish to push this, what would you like me to do in order to get the infobox acceptable Halo FC (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You can WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (Click that wikilink and read the page, please.) You are never going to get your infobox acceptable. I have told you so many times what is wrong with your infobox I am blue in the face (flags by everyone's names and the four pictures). The article already has an acceptable infobox. You prove there is no reasoning with you because you refuse to see my point of view and keep harping on this, no matter how you think you are "addressing" my points. You started this, not me. You were the one clamoring for an infobox; you lied and said you would give up the flags and not theme it like a military conflict. I then decided an acceptable infobox could be made without these elements. What do you mean, "I got what I wanted?" It's the other way around; you got what you wanted. Controversies (it's called article instability) are one sure way to kill a Good Article promotion. Is that what you are trying to do?

You are the one pushing this, not me. Neopeius did not endorse your infobox; he said he didn't care that much; this still does not make a consensus. He said his major concern is the length of the article, and that is what should be focused on. And your ex parte discussion with him on his talk page is out of order; if you think you have something to contribute, it should be in the GA nomination discussion. Now if you will excuse me, I need to stop wasting time on your autistic nonsense and get back to responding to the GA reviewer about his issues. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

if I'm harping this, then you are also contributing to it by undoing my edit, you could also have just left it be. I think it's prolonged not because I'm not addressing your points, but you not doing it, making it hard for me to get your point of view. I didn't lie, I just thought that since Neopeius didn't object, and so it wouldn't be an obstacle to your GA. An infobox wouldn't have been an obstacle to GA anyway, and now we know, and ultimately what you want most is that right. And I just wanted to avoid your fury before I would get a reply from him lol

And, in no way I am wishing to harm the GA promotion, as I said previously, I too want to make this a good article, that's why I wanted to put in an infobox. And of course, I'm not gonna sabotage my own efforts after spending so much effort on the infobox.

Edit: (missed out the word "not"), dang Halo FC (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I mean, I don't think there's anyone who would take issue with the flags or photos, only you, because you were initially pretty high-strung about the GA stuff, and now that's no longer an issue.

Anyway, I just wanna ask, in essence what I've said previously, could you not object to the flags since this is such a common practice on Misplaced Pages (and also considering that the reviewer doesn't object)? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, but as an actual question. And also, maybe consider the idea that most readers don't find it cluttering? I'm speaking plainly, and I don't mean to sound rude, though it can appear that way over text. Halo FC (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"I didn't lie, I just thought that since Neopeius didn't object, and so it wouldn't be an obstacle to your GA." You must have poor longterm memory; why are you talking about Neopeius to say you didn't lie? You lied on 21 April, 2021, (before Neopeius came on board) when you wrote "As for the flags, well, all the conflict infoboxes place flags, though if you don't want them, I don't mind, no problem." And you never ever stopped fighting for inclusion of the flags. Therefore I can only conclude you were lying when you said you don't mind if I don't want them.

I never said having an infobox (or not having one, for that matter) would be an obstacle to GA. The obstacle is your edit warring. There is absolutely no reason your version of the infobox is necessary for GA.

"I don't think there's anyone who would take issue with the flags or photos, only you, because you were initially pretty high-strung about the GA stuff"" You are mind-reading again; you have absolutely no proof that no one would take issue. MOS:FLAG proves that many people do. There are also people who take issue with the infobox looking like "military conflict". Look at the Article milestones at the top of this talk page, and read past FA reviews. (This used to be rated FA by someone who didn't understand our requirements, and it lost the rating. There was another contentious editor, Abebenjoe, who put Template:infobox military conflict in the article, and someone explicitly said this was inappropriate; I removed it on 23 February, 2011.) If I am "high-strung" it is not about the GA, but about your imperviousness.

"Could you not object to the flags since this is such a common practice on Misplaced Pages (and also considering that the reviewer doesn't object)?" No. Again, you have no proof of how "common" a practice it is; it contradicts the Manual Of Style, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is universally not considered a valid argument.

"I'm speaking plainly, and I don't mean to sound rude, though it can appear that way over text." Here's a hint: stop typing "lol". There isn't anything about this that I find the least bit funny. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS guideline for flags

Sorry for such an extended quote of guidelines here, but to make it clear why I am opposed to use of individual personal flags here, I quote the relevant passages here and explain how this applies to this infobox.

For the purposes of this section of the guideline, "icons" refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated.
Appropriate flag use
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.

The Space Race participants are neither a military unit nor a national sports team. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.

See #Inappropriate use 2 for when to not use flags even if the information seems pertinent (in which case, add it in word form).
Consistency is not paramount
If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many.
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

Again, this is not a military conflict or international (sports) competition. A single set of flags for the national competitors (US and USSR) is sufficient to convey the desired information.

Space Race
Part of the Cold War
File:Russia& -39;s Mir space station is backdropped against Earth& -39;s horizon. Original from NASA . Digitally enhanced by rawpixel. - 41997987775.jpgClockwise, from top left: A model of the Sputnik 1 satellite, astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the Moon, the Soviet Mir low earth orbit modular space station, the Apollo 11 Saturn V lifting off
Date	August 2 1955 – December 25 1991 (36 years and 5 months)
Result	The Soviet Union launches the first satellite and sends the first human into outer space The United States lands the first humans on the Moon The Soviet Union builds a modular space station The United States develops a reusable Space Shuttle The US and Russian Federation collaborate on the International Space Station
Competitors
United States Soviet Union
Political leaders
Dwight D. Eisenhower John F. Kennedy James E. Webb Lyndon B. Johnson Thomas O. Paine Richard Nixon James C. Fletcher Nikita Khrushchev Leonid Brezhnev Dmitry Ustinov
Technical leaders
Wernher von Braun Maxime Faget Robert Gilruth Sergei Korolev Mikhail Yangel Valentin Glushko Vladimir Chelomei
Major operations
Mercury program Gemini program Apollo program Space Shuttle program Sputnik program Vostok program Voskhod program Salyut program Soyuz program
Major achievements
Space rendezvous and docking Long-duration flights (83 days) Productive extravehicular activity Landing humans on the Moon Reusable Space Shuttle Space rendezvous and docking Modular space stations (Mir) Long-duration flights (816 days)
Costs
US $170.631 billion (1958–1991)
Near catastrophes
Gemini 8 Apollo 13 Voskhod 2 Soyuz T-10-1
Catastrophes
Apollo 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster Nedelin catastrophe Soyuz 1 Soyuz 11

Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations
Some flags are politically contentious ;– take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are:

Use of the Nazi flag to represent German rocket scientists who became US citizens after World War II JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Biographical use
Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. For example, the actress Naomi Watts could be said, depending upon context and point of view, to be any or all of: British, English, Welsh, or Australian. She was born a British citizen in England, lived in Wales for a long time, then moved to Australia and became an Australian citizen. There is no single flag for that, and using all four flags will not be helpful.
Flags are discouraged in the individual infoboxes of biographical articles. Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates in the following situations:

In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use that of the later nationality.

QED JustinTime55 (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Incegnetty:, this is regarding the infobox photos. I think the user @Indomiteus: brought up a good point, that the aspect ratio has to be considered. He also created a single collage photo. Previously, I had made something similar, using the photo montage template. The photo montage template is flexible, but not always able to work, and we might need to use single collage photos like the one Indomiteus made. Though before that we should work on which images to use, thanks.

Also, I'd like to suggest this infobox "Result" version as a well-rounded and concise set of points to be used for the article, thanks again. Halo FC (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Halo FC:, your proposal looks good to me. However two questions, firstly, is it accurate to list Wernher von Braun with the West German/German flag? AFAIK, he was already in the United States years prior to West Germany's establishment in 1949. If the Nazi flag is too terse, perhaps this alternate German flag would be much more accurate? It was after all the flag of Germany at the time of his birth, and was used up to 1935. Secondly, I do think the events of the Luna 2, Venera 7 and Mars 3 are significant achievements in the context of the Space Race that should stay listed on the infobox. Thanks. Incegnetty (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you. Previously, I had tried to explain the importance of von Braun's Nazi origins to the entire grand situation. Then, it was brought up that von Braun was already an American by the time the Space Race began in 1955. However, in 1955, he was already a West German citizen, so I edited the flag to comply with that.

And yeah, I think the planetary and moon probes can be listed as one point Halo FC (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, @Halo FC: and @Nsae Comp:: you've succeeded in killing the GA nomination on 7 June 2021! Quoth the reviewer: "I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article." JustinTime55 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Winners - the Russians?

It seems to be a view that Russia won the space race and the moon shot was a late consolation prize as outlined here: "the real pioneers of space exploration were the Soviet cosmonauts, telling the story of how the Russians led us into the space age." Since the article is 'the space race', how should winning the space race be defined? Burraron (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That "view" belongs exclusively to the Russians and their sympathizers, and fails to keep the Space Race in its proper historical perspective. It was much more than simply a "race to be first"; first satellite and first man in space do not prove technical superiority, which this was a struggle for. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

That "view" belongs exclusively to the Americans and their sympathizers, and fails to keep the Space Race in its proper historical perspective. It was much more than simply a "race to be first"; first man on the moon does not prove technical superiority, which this was a struggle for.

See how stupid that sounds? There were no "winners," it was a collective achievement of humanity. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:503C:6677:65D6:AB99 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Current length status

The last GA reviewer was concerned about article length. According to MS Word, the count currently stands at 12,372 words, 76,670 characters including spaces and footnote refs. The Page History X Tool says 11,126 words, 68,235 characters. The mellow, laid-back folks at the Teahouse are down with this. (WP:Article size recommends "10,000 words (50 kB and above)".

At this point, I don't think it needs any more cutting just for the sake of cutting, although fat can always be trimmed from the lean. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"Soviet rocket technology comparable to Germany's" ???

I am moving @Ilenart626:'s recent addition here for now, for discussion. I find several things are problematic about it:

Was Nikolai Tikhomirov alive in 1921 to lead the first "sanctioned" Soviet rocket research? Our biography page, while calling him an engineer, says absolutely nothing about rocket research, and says he died in 1900 at the age of 42 or 43.
This statement is highly controversial: "During the 1930s Soviet rocket technology was comparable to Germany's, but Joseph Stalin's Great Purge from 1936 to 1938 severely damaged its progress." Technology has to be developed; Germany spent the 1930s developing the Aggregat class of intermediate-range ballistic missiles; if the statement of parity were true, one would expect Hitler and Stalin to be lobbing IRBM's at each other, instead of just Hitler bombing London. It may well be true the Soviets would have come closer to parity had Stalin been more interested in that than purging his "enemies", but as it is this comes across as a "dog-ate-my-homework" sort of excuse.
There is a WP:BALANCE problem in going to this much detail for the Soviets, at the expense of the German and American programs; smacks of a bit too much sympathy for the Soviet Union. This section needs to be written in WP:SUMMARY style, with detail like this included in the referenced pages.
In light of the recent failed GA review, it was identified that the article needs to be trimmed, not bloated more.
The text is replete with grammatical (e.g. "an Tupolev" instead of "a Tupolev" and punctuation errors (missing quotes and commas, etc.)

The reverted text follows:

The first Soviet development of rockets was in 1921 when the Soviet military sanctioned a small research laboratory to explore solid fuel rockets, led by Nikolai Tikhomirov, who had commenced studying solid and liquid-fueled rockets in 1894, and in 1915 he lodged a patent for "self-propelled aerial and water-surface mines. The First test-firing of a solid fuel rocket was carried out in 1928 and in 1932 in-air test firings of RS-82 missiles from an Tupolev I-4 aircraft armed with six launchers successfully took place. Further developments were carried out by members of GIRD in the 1930s, where Soviet rocket pioneers Sergey Korolev, Friedrich Zander, Mikhail Tikhonravov and Leonid Dushkin launched GIRD-09 the first Soviet liquid-fueled rocket in 1933. In 1935 the two design bureaus were combined and resulted in RP-318 the Soviets first rocket-powered aircraft and the RS-82 and RS-132 missiles, which became the basis for the Katyusha multiple rocket launcher, During the 1930s Soviet rocket technology was comparable to Germany's, but Joseph Stalin's Great Purge from 1936 to 1938 severely damaged its progress.
During World War II Soviet rocket development continued, including a short-range rocket powered interceptor called Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 and Auxillary liquid-fueled rocket engines to assist takeoff and climbing of prop aircraft. In 1944 the Soviets became aware of Nazi Germany's rocket programme from Winston Churchill, which resulted in recovery of A-4 missile parts from a missile test station in Debica, Poland. In early 1945 a team of Soviet rocket specialists were sent to Germany to idenify and recover German rocket technology, which developed into Institute Rabe, a Soviet missile research group in Bleicherode, Germany that recruited and employed German rocket specialists to aid in current and future Soviet rocket development.

References

Siddiqi 2000, p. 6.
Chertok 2005, p. 164-5 Vol 1.
Chertok 2005, p. 165 Vol 1.
Siddiqi 2000, p. 4-5.
George P. Sutton (November–December 2003). "History of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines in Russia, Formerly the Soviet Union". Journal of Propulsion and Power. 19 (6): 1008–1037. doi:10.2514/2.6943. Archived from the original on 2021-04-29.
Chertok 2005, p. 167 vol 1.
John Pike. "Katyusha Rocket". Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2016-01-19.
"Greatest World War II Weapons : The Fearsome Katyusha Rocket Launcher". Defencyclopidea. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
Siddiqi 2000, p. 9.
Chertok 2005, p. 167-8 Vol 1.
"Bolkhovitinov Bi-1". aviastar.org. Retrieved 29 May 2022.
Chertok 2005, p. 174,207 Vol 1.
Siddiqi 2000, p. 15.
Chertok 2005, p. 258-9 Vol 1.
Chertok 2005, p. 214 Vol 1.
Chertok 2005, p. 289-300 Vol 1.

Sources cited

Siddiqi, Asif (2000). Challenge to Apollo : the Soviet Union and the space race, 1945-1974 (PDF). Washington, D.C: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA History Div. Retrieved 22 May 2022.

Chertok, Boris (2005). Rockets and People Volumes 1-4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved 29 May 2022.

JustinTime55 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@JustinTime55:, thanks for the comments. Note that I started editing this section when I saw some of the existing information is incorrect. Soviet investigation of Russian rocket technology started in Aug-Sep 1944 in Poland and from Apr 1945 in Germany. Sergei Korolev was not involved in any of the intial investigation, he arrived in Germany in Sept 1945 to study missile launch preparation equipment and in Mar 1946 was appointed deputy (ie 2nd in charge) and chief designer of Institute Nordhausen. So the current statement that Korolev was"... chief rocket engineer (essentially the Soviet counterpart to von Braun) and sent him to lead a team of his best rocket engineers to Peenemünde to see what they could salvage." is not correct and why I prepared the new details.

To answer your specific questions:

Was Nikolai Tikhomirov alive in 1921 to lead the first "sanctioned" Soviet rocket research? Our biography page, while calling him an engineer, says absolutely nothing about rocket research, and says he died in 1900 at the age of 42 or 43.

Different person, I am talking about the rocket specialist Nikolai Ivanovich Tikhomirov (1860-1930) not the engineer Nikolai Mikhailovich Tikhomirov (1857-1900). Both the Siddiqi and Chertok references I have provided highlight details of his accomplishments. Note that one of craters on the far side of the moon is named after him.

THIS PERSON HAS A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE: Nikolai Tikhomirov (chemical engineer). His page says he was born in November 1859. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This statement is highly controversial: "During the 1930s Soviet rocket technology was comparable to Germany's, but Joseph Stalin's Great Purge from 1936 to 1938 severely damaged its progress." Technology has to be developed; Germany spent the 1930s developing the Aggregat class of intermediate-range ballistic missiles; if the statement of parity were true, one would expect Hitler and Stalin to be lobbing IRBM's at each other, instead of just Hitler bombing London. It may well be true the Soviets would have come closer to parity had Stalin been more interested in that than purging his "enemies", but as it is this comes across as a "dog-ate-my-homework" sort of excuse.

The statement "During the 1930s Soviet rocket technology was comparable to Germany's, but Joseph Stalin's Great Purge severely damaged its progress." has been in the Soviet space program article for the last 7 years, however it was not supported by any references. When I was recently reviewing Chertok's Rockets and People Volume 1 I came across the following (p166-167):

"In the 1930s, only the Soviet and German governments were supporting work on a broad spectrum of rocket-related subjects. From 1932–1935, the Germans lagged behind us considerably, especially in the area of rockets. Beginning in 1935, however, the Germans started to catch up and then pass us in the development of liquid-propellant rocket engines, especially in those using oxygen/ alcohol components. During the tragic years of 1937–38, NII-3 lost its leadership. Kleymenov and Langemak were arrested in 1937 and shot to death in January 1938.Military engineer Boris Slonimer, who had returned from Spain, was appointed chief. Kostikov was appointed chief engineer and deputy chief. In 1938, Glushko and then Korolev were arrested."

This seemed to be a fair supporting reference for whoever first included this statement seven years ago, so I added the reference to the Soviet space programme article, which I then copied accross when I was updating this article.

In answer to your statement, "..if the statement of parity were true, one would expect Hitler and Stalin to be lobbing IRBM's at each other, instead of just Hitler bombing London." note that as soon as Hitler invaded USSR the Soviets were lobbing rockets at the Nazis; the Katyusha rocket launcher was already in use by the Soviet military, plus the RS-82 and RS-132 was also in use. In fact in 1939 Soviet aircraft shot down 19 Japanese aircraft with RS-82 rockets during the Battle of Khalkhin Gol.

There is a WP:BALANCE problem in going to this much detail for the Soviets, at the expense of the German and American programs; smacks of a bit too much sympathy for the Soviet Union. This section needs to be written in WP:SUMMARY style, with detail like this included in the referenced pages.

I don't think WP:BALANCE is an issue here, particularly between the US and Soviet programmes. Before 1945 the US rocket programme did not exist, apart from Robert H. Goddard who was ridiculed. Contrast this with Soviet research before and during WWII, which had a number of research labs working on multitude types of rocket technology and had deployed working rocket systems in the military. WP:Balance states "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Given the extent of the Soviet rocket technology I would see no issues with the Soviet section being double the size of the US section.

In light of the recent failed GA review, it was identified that the article needs to be trimmed, not bloated more.

This is a fair point, however I would not describe replacing inaccurate information as "bloated more". Note that I have already trimmed down this section a fair bit, see the complete section in Soviet space program#Early Russian-Soviet efforts and the ""World War II" section below this, basically the Soviets were pretty active in this area, so describing what they did takes a bit of space. I would support creating or shifting information to other articles. From a quick look at this article I would suggest the "Outer space treaty" and "Space Shuttles" sections could be moved as I am unsure how they relate to the "Space race". We could also perhaps create a "Early History of Soviet space programme" similar to Creation of NASA, however at the moment the Soviet space programme has no issues with size.

The text is replete with grammatical (e.g. "an Tupolev" instead of "a Tupolev" and punctuation errors (missing quotes and commas, etc.)

I think this is a minor point. If you or other Editors would like review and / or highlight any issues I will correct. Note that I am an Ozzie so I speak an write "Australian" :)

JustinTime55, happy to discuss changes and / or improvements with yourself and other Editors on what I have drafted. However I believe the new wording is an improvement on the existing section and should be included. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No reply so have move the above text back into the article Ilenart626 (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My response

(I put this down here in a new section instead of responding to points in-stream in order to prevent a confusing wall of text.)

Sigh... Okay, I'm all for replacing inaccuracies with accurate info. I should say good catch; I guess GA nomination was premature anyway. until we get this all sorted out and polished.

I think we still need to straighten out the mess with so many Tikhomirovs, especially the two Nikolai's with different middle names. That strikes me as a bit too much of a coincidence; were 2 or all 3 of them related? (But that's mostly a matter for the other articles, not necessarily here. At least Nikolai Ivanovich Tikhomirov should have his own bibliographic article.) Meanwhile, how do we keep stray drive-by editors (seems to be the current level of interest in Space Race) from getting confused like I was and try to re-add the wrong wikilink? If you could work on straightening out the bios and Soviet rocket program, I can work on cleaning up your Space Race section.

It's good to have verification of my conviction that the Soviets could have progressed much farther, sooner if Stalin wasn't so paranoid and doing insane things like imprisoning Korolev. And to make myself clear, when I said "the Soviets should have been lobbing missiles" I was thinking of V2-sized IRBM's, not Katyusha artillery "rockets".

We shouldn't assume readers know, or make them guess, what GIRD stands for ("Further developments were carried out by members of GIRD in the 1930s"); needs to be spelled out in the wikilink.

I still think most of the details should go into Soviet rocketry and Soviet space program, and use summary style in Space Race.

Even though it helps develop the technology, I'm not quite sure how rocket-powered aircraft research relates directly to the Space Race. And weren't the Germans working on the same thing? (Is this like the V-1?)

I still think you write funny even for an "Ozzie" (I thought it's spelled "Aussie".) :-) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries! Have been busy the last couple of days and managed to Translate the Nikolai Tikhomirov (chemical engineer) from the Russian Wiki site. I debated how to separate the two articles and as per WP:NCPDAB eventually settled on "chemical engineer", even though he is better known for his contribution to rockets. I'm happy to keep working on the bios and the rest of the Soviet program, currently working on translating the Russian version of Gas Dynamic Laboratory (GDL).

There is already an article on GIRD (Group for the Study of Reactive Motion) but I was trying to minimise the word count. Once I have some of these other articles finished probably worthwhile detailing how they fit together, maybe in Soviet rocketry? Ilenart626 (talk)

ANOTHER APPARENT CONTRADICTION: I'm assuming Gas Dynamics Laboratory was the name of the first small research lab Tikhomirov worked for, but several WP articles (e.g. RS-82 (rocket family)do a search on "Gas Dynamics Lab") state that this group included, but was not led by Tikhomirov, but by someone else: Georgy Langemak.

Also, the GIRD article contradicts the date of the GDL/GRID merger, 1933 rather than 1935. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The Design work on RS-82 and RS-132 rockets was led by Georgy Langemak, who was an employee of the Gas Dynamics Laboratory. Tikhomirov started the lab in 1921 and it was initally called something along the lines of “Lab to commercialise the inventions of Tikhomirov. In 1928 it was renamed “Gas Dynamics Laboratory”.

These quotes from Rockets and People may help:

“ GDL was created in Moscow in 1921 to develop the inventions of Nikolay Tikhomirov.After moving to Leningrad it was named the Gas-Dynamics Laboratory. Nikolay Tikhomirov had proposed using the reaction of gases obtained during the combustion of explosive substances for “self-propelled mines for the water and air.” GDL activity was concentrated on creating smokeless solid-propellant projectiles and the technology needed to manufacture their explosive charges.Vladimir Artemyev was Tikhomirov’s close collaborator and co-author in the development of the first solid-propellant rockets. He designed the first smokeless powder rocket and authored many inventions in the field of solid-propellant rockets.

In 1930,after the death of Tikhomirov,military engineer and artilleryman Boris Petropavlovskiy was appointed GDL director. Petropavlovskiy was also a professor at the Military Technical Academy, and he actively promoted the idea of rocket weaponry among his students.At his initiative, GDL developed launchers for the firing of rockets in the form of simple openwork tubes secured under the wings of an aircraft.

Petropavlovskiy became seriously ill in late 1932, and died in 1933. Ivan Kleymenov was appointed as the new GDL chief.Before coming to work at GDL, he had studied in the physics and mathematics department at Moscow University, and from there had been sent to the N.Ye. Zhukovskiy Air Force Academy. Upon graduation from the Academy, Kleymenov received the GDL appointment and took up the baton for the development of smokeless solid-propellant rockets for aircraft and multi-barreled rocket launchers.

Along with Kleymenov and Artemyev, one of the main leaders in the development of rockets at GDL was Georgiy Langemak. Like Petropavlovskiy and Kleymenov,he had volunteered for service in the Red Army during the civil war, and then was sent to study.After graduation from the Military Technical Academy, he selected internal ballistics as his specialty.“

Ilenart626 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure of the date of the merger, have to do some research Ilenart626 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay...thanks for the very fine research. But I'm sure you'll agree, that best fits in the Soviet rocketry article and is way TMI for the Space Race article; we should just essentially summarize by saying Tikhomirov was USSR's founding father of small rocket research in what became the GDL; then the military began the serious research at GIRD, and they were merged in 1932.

Summary of American rocket research: Goddard would have been US's founding father, except he was a victim of the WWI armistice (damned peace is bad for rocket development!) and the ridicule of the New York Times, and so became a recluse, leaving his wife to patent his discoveries and sue von Braun, yada yada.

BTW: an important implicit, (unstated) point of the Space Race article is that people who think it was all Jules Verne, science-inspired are misguided, and Gene Rodenberry had his head up his butt with his utopian BS; the irony is that without world war and megalomaniacal dictators (Hitler, Stalin) and Western governments to defend against them, there would be no wherewithall "to boldly go where no man has gone before". There were no real-life Daddy Warbucks with deep enough pockets to build rockets for space travel ($$$). Today entrepreneurs like Elon Musk are trying to fill in the gaps, but seem to be making slow progress when compared to JFK's moon race. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can call Tikhomirov USSR's "founding father", I think he was one of the pioneers, however Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's article describes him as a founding father (along with the Frenchman Robert Esnault-Pelterie, the Germans Hermann Oberth, Fritz von Opel and the American Robert H. Goddard) of modern rocketry and astronautics). I'm also happy to work on bios and the Soviet space program if you want to work on this article. My plan is to finish off a few more translations of articles from the Russian wiki (ie Gas Dynamics Laboratory, GIRD, etc) as I am finding details which are not on the English wiki. Then I can carry out a cross check of all the articles for consistency. I also believe Siddiqi’s Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 and Chertok's 4 volume Rockets and People are two good sources to check / update all the articles. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Siddiqi 2000, p. 6.
Chertok 2005, p. 164-5 Vol 1.

Encyclopedia Astronautica not reliable

I noticed that there are quite a few references on this article to Encyclopedia Astronautica however the site is no longer being updated and I noted this comment from @SpinningSpark: on the site’s wiki article talk page:

"Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, pp. 484–485.

Would suggest that we should start replacing thse references with reliable souces and deleting any errors. Ilenart626 (talk)

NPOV issues

I want to bring attention to this edit which I have made because they are of pertinence to the presentation of the information within this article, even if they are of minor trivia or so, and concerns that some or all of this article may be too skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints, which may invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The edit is actually a partial revert of User:Andyjsmith's removal of passages first added by other IP regarding Ham the space chimp, Ranger 4 and Alan Shepard. In my partial revert I had restored only the passages regarding the first two, while agreeing that the very latter may be better suited in articles which are "in-depth" rather than this.

User:Chipmunkdavis had undone my edits under the very vague reasons of "unencyclopedic", "trivia" or "not suited here", and as it reached 3RR I first attempted to reach him at talk page to discuss the issue, but found out that it was semi-protected. Thus I'd like to bring the issue here for discussion or solicit third opinions from subject matter experts such as User:JustinTime55.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Chipmunkdavis' removal of your edits, what have they got to do with the space race between the USSR and USA? And frankly what have your edits about Ham the monkey or objects impacting the moon got to do with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Ilenart626 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

If you only skimmed through my thread with a mobile phone or so, then I'd happy to repeat a gist, but for only once:

concerns that some or all of this article may be too skewed towards pro-USSR/Russian viewpoints, which may invite animosity among WP:READERS in the context of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The sin of omission itself, while may be constructive in some cases, may prove to be harmful in terms of WP:NPOV in other instances. For most the space race is also an exhibition of "firsts" and technical achievements, no matter how big or small, by either side so it's hard to see why it's good to left these out, except perhaps to avoid the page from becoming too long. Since I fear this is going to be a gridlock, I had by now used the talk page invitation function to get Justintime55 who's a subject matter expert that has performed substantive edits on this page, to give a third opinion on this.

204.15.72.92 (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To add some more, the reason why I linked this issue to the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, is because readers could get an impression that USSR/Russia's achievements were overrated or bloated to the detriment of the US, even though the FAQ in this talk page header states that the race resulted in a tie and no one "won" the race. As a result some of them would go dig deeper and find out that there are nuances or caveats behind those achievements and proceed to either edit this page or just make a fuss about it. If it's reverted or so on then they could easily switch to the latter, where it could very well become something like the Streisand effect and produce a perception that Misplaced Pages violated WP:NPOV conventions by "secretly loving Russia" in here which I think could produce net harm to the project in the long term. Beside that, why is Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine which is far more unrelated to the scope of this article than the proposed edits, is in the "See also" section? 204.15.72.92 (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I thought that saying Ranger “acquired the dubious honour of being the first spacecraft to impact the far side of the Moon” was a particularly fine example of an edit that absolutely cried out for immediate reversion as unreferenced irrelevant trivia. It manages to be opinionated (“dubious”) and anthropomorphic (“honour”) whilst conveying no information that is in any way relevant to the article or even interesting. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's always WP:SOFIXIT! It can be pared down to a staid manner which simply states that it was the first probe to hit the far side of the Moon. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

And the relevance to the space race is what exactly? Is crashing, unseen, in one place rather than another place even a thing? Is there a league table for objects that crashed on the moon where this vehicle has a place of honour? Did it spur Cold War rivalry or give Korolev bad dreams? Thought not. Trivia. Boring. Irrelevant. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In turn there are POV issues which could conceivably give the users an impression that it is skewed towards pro-Soviet viewpoints, no matter how implicit it is. The "Origins" section gives more coverage to Soviet rocket development whereas American ones like Qian Xuesen and the GALCIT were left out, the latter makes the statement This left the United States as the only one of the major three World War II powers not to have its own rocket program, until Von Braun and his engineers were expatriated in 1945. inaccurate. Within the Robotic lunar probes section, the Soviet's Luna mission were given relatively meticulous attention (such as failure attempts) and America's early Thor-Able probes in the Pioneer program were ignored. At a glance readers would take that US has less failure rate that the USSR, but deep down it gave another wrong impression that US has a late footing than Russia and "didn't try hard enough" in terms of lunar probes launching attempts whether successful or not. Then finally the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine in the "See also" section, which should just be in namesake satellite page as it's a bit out of scope in this article, appears to be something that "spikes the football" for Russia, in spite of original editor's intentions when adding the link to here. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Going the standards which you have used here in this case, the following passage in this article is conceivably "trivia" or "irrelevant" as well. 204.15.72.92 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Valentina Tereshkova, was launched into space on Vostok 6 on June 16, 1963, as (possibly) a medical experiment. She was the only one to fly of a small group of female parachutist factory workers (unlike the male cosmonauts who were military test pilots), chosen by the head of cosmonaut training because he read a tabloid article about the "Mercury 13" group of women wanting to become astronauts, and got the mistaken idea that NASA was actually entertaining this.

Boy you certainly like to bring in irrelevant points when discussing your edits, which is monkeys and impact on the moon. Suggest you review WP:TALK, particularly "Stay on topic". I think this discussion has "impacted" a deadend and we should stop "monkeying" around with this issue. Ilenart626 (talk)

The point remains that NPOV issues are at play here. In fact I had thought about going to the NPOV noticeboard and raise the issue to be resolved by experienced editors. As I am quite busy in other things at the moment I'll rest my case here, for now.204.15.72.92 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories: