Talk:Soviet space program

Article needs more balanced coverage

This article needs more balanced coverage, and I'm soliciting comments before making changes.

What's omitted is the circumstances behind many of the "firsts". For example, while it's true that the Soviet Union launched the first satellite, it's also true the United States *could* have launched a satellite two years earlier, and in fact had the satellite in storage. ("Wernher von Braun: Crusader for Space") Another example is that while it's true the Voskhod 1 had the first three person crew, it's also true that to do so, the crew had to wear no spacesuits! The "Buran" section makes no mention that the Soviet Shuttle was so widely recognized to be a tardy copy of the American shuttle, there were jokes and cartoons.

What's omitted in the article is a sense of perspective. Reading the "Notable firsts" section, a reader might get the impression that the Soviet Union was ahead in all areas, whereas many of the scientifically significant missions have been American, almost right from the start.

Some mention of the context of these "firsts" needs to be added. After all, Wikipedia is not a "Guinness Book of World Records". Or at least, I remember reading that somewhere in the guidelines.

Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

On the topic of the Buran, the lack of comparison to the U.S also prevents mention of the fact that in many ways (to my knowledge at least, I need to doublecheck my sources) the Buran was more flexible, and capable than the Shuttle. Jemhop (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not the USA could of/would have/should have launched the first artificial Earth satellite, is immaterial to the fact that they didn't, and that the USSR did. It's no more biased then saying the USA was first to have a crew go to the Moon even though the USSR was well on their way. As most space enthusiasts know, the effort was abandoned after the N1 disaster, and knowledge that the USA had won that race. --Kerbyki (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the Incidents, failures, and setbacks section be removed, or should a similar section be added to pages on other articles about space organizations?

I'm currently working on replacing unnecessarily negative language from this page, but I (obviously) don't feel comfortable removing an entire section. It seems to reveal a large amount of bias that this page has a section of this sort while that of NASA does not. Its more complete to have a section of this sort, but should it stay if there is none on the NASA page?--Jemhop (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking in the archives of the NASA Talk page their use to be a Criticism section on the NASA page that was worked into the text as per the recommendations of the Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Note that a fair bit of the text were moved to other relevant pages, for example, the Alleged alcohol use was moved to Lisa Nowak#Reactions. Would suggest the same could apply to this page. Ilenart626 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to go.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Strong dissent The encyclopedia is never well-served by the removal of factual information. There is no undue weight problem caused by admitting the Soviet failures, as long as the same is admitted for NASA who also had some fatalities and setbacks. This is significant because of the importance of the Cold War and Space Race which founded the world space programs, and deserves more weight than "other space organizations". This is not unfair to the poor Soviet Union, boo-hoo. Not to make personal attacks, but I don't think you "citizens of the world" quite appreciate that if you weren't alive prior to 1992.

I would much rather see a comparable Setbacks and failures section in NASA. With the exception of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 and the Shuttles Challenger and Columbia, NASA did not have nearly as many serious failures (e.g. Nedelin catastrophe) as the Soviets. Also no fair focusing on NASA alcoholism / marital infidelities, etc. The Soviet section has none of this, and concentrates exclusively on technical failures.

In fact, the article is already making some apologies for the Soviet program by disguising some failures as "canceled programs". Buran was an engineering failure (attempt to steal US technology protected by disinfo, failed to replicate a reusable heat shield); also Polyus (single flight test was a failure, and became a Cold War "white elephant"). Also, how can Energia be both a "completed project" and a canceled project (another white elephant without the Buran payload)? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: notice this article's infobox is strongly tied to the "Incidents, failures, and setbacks" section because it contains wikilinks to several article sections. And this article and NASA are inconsistently classified by infobox: this is a "Space program by country" while NASA is a "Space agency". JustinTime55 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly your whole post is POV pushing ie “ This is not unfair to the poor Soviet Union, boo-hoo”, what sort of comment is that? And I also note how you dismiss “With the exception of Apollo 1 and Apollo 13 and the Shuttles Challenger and Columbia, NASA did not have nearly as many serious failures…”, lets just dismiss disasters that killed 17 people. If you want the facts go look at List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents which highlight 24 US fatalities and 6 Soviet fatalities, which means the US record is far worse than the Soviets. Finally your suggestion of "...rather see a comparable Setbacks and failures section in NASA." goes against the Wikipedia policy detailed in Wikipedia:Criticism sections. Suggest you read it and hopefully you can understand why Jimbo Wales (one of the founders of Wikipedia) strongly endorses this policy, ie "sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful if it leads to users with strong opinions dominating the article". Ilenart626 (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Update on ‘Origins’ section

Over the last couple of months I have been working on updates to the ‘Origins’ section, including new articles about Gas Dynamics Laboratory, Reactive Scientific Research Institute and German influence on the Soviet space program and a major update to the Group for the Study of Reactive Motion. I’m planning to now work on the rest of the article, however I think the article is now a lot more balanced with sufficient references to remove the NPOV and additional citation templates. Comments / thoughts? Ilenart626 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt the neutrality of your changes and deletions. Several arguments are provided in the talk to German influence on the Soviet space program. In Helmut Gröttrup I reverted some changes and added several explanations in the talk. Chertok is not a neutral source and incorrect in some areas, especially when it comes to the German contributions which were largely disclaimed during the Soviet era. Have a look on the similarities between the designs of the G-4 (Gröttrup's team in 1948) and the Soviet R-7 (Korolew's team in 1957 for launching the Sputnik) for the shape and size. Only major difference: The G-4 was designed with one swivel-mounted engine of 100 tons thrust while each R-7 booster used RD-107 with four combustion chambers, each with a similar size of the V2 engine but upgraded performance. --SchmiAlf (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Refer my reply at Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program#Joint work of Korolev and Gröttrup from 1945 to 1950. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

For more information on this topic refer to the dispute Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#German influence on the Soviet space program. SchmiAlf (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

German influence

The statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet rocket program was marginal." in this Soviet space program#German influence section is taken from the lead of German influence on the Soviet space program with four references (which do not support this statement). Following the dispute already mentioned above a survey Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program#Survey was opened by the moderator. Please participate in the survey and vote for your preferred option! SchmiAlf (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed three references (Neufeld (2012), Mick (2000), Zak (2016)) from the disputed statement "However, after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet rocket program was marginal." It is only Siddiqi (2000) who mentions it on p. 84 but out of context with his detailed view on page 81-83. It is not at all supported by the three other quoted sources. Comments should be added to RFC on last sentence of Lede with all pros and cons of the dispute. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"...the most capable German rocket scientists and engineers"? According to whom?

Under the heading "Origins: German influence", one finds this claim: "On 22 October 1946, 302 of the most capable German rocket scientists and engineers...were deported to the Soviet Union as part of Operation Osoaviakhim..." (emphasis added). Nothing is provided to explain what "the most capable" means in this context. The Russians did not get the top German rocket engineers; men like Wernher von Braun, Hermann Oberth, Walter Dornberger, Ludwig Roth and Arthur Rudolph, who were actual department heads and project leaders for the German rocket program, and who went to the US as part of Operation Paperclip. So what does "most capable" mean? Bricology (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 8 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ASUKITE 15:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

---

• Soviet space program → Space program of the Soviet Union
• Chinese space program → Space program of ChinaSpace program of China
• Japanese space program → Space program of JapanSpace program of Japan
• Azerbaijan's space program → Space program of Azerbaijan
• Brazilian space program → Space program of Brazil
• Kazakh space program → Space program of Kazakhstan
• Lebanese space program → Space program of Lebanon
• Philippine space program → Space program of the PhilippinesSpace program of the Philippines

– I propose these moves for consistency both with articles such as "Economy of China" (as opposed to "Chinese economy"), and, in some cases, with the boldtext within the affected articles. A 2012 discussion reached a similar consensus with categories of space programs (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 18#Space programs). Alternatively, assuming this proposal is not enacted, I would suggest that "Space programme of Kenya" and "Space program of Turkey" are moved to "Kenyan space programme" and "Turkish space program", respectively. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is more aligned with Wikipedia style and fits well for lots of circumstances. This could be a general rule in the manual of style for how often this issue arises. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose 'Space program of wherever' is not natural sounding—blindlynx 14:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose For the English language Wikipedia, it sounds awkward to speak of 'The Space Program of Turkey' when one could simply say 'The Turkish Space Program'. In general, The x Space Program is how we commonly speak of 'Space Programs' which belong to a particular group x. That said, I do not believe one can generalize a style rule for all subjects: The y of Kerbal may be more natural for some y which are not 'Space Program'. B9 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Obviously either title style works, but I'm not convinced that these new titles are "better" somehow, and are mildly less concise. SnowFire (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: These titles are not an improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Internal competition and After Korolev

The Internal competition and After Korolev sections need serious overhaul, virtually no citations are given and the language may violate style guidelines. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

List of missing information

I will try to list information missing in this article below, it's unacceptable to me that such an important topic has C-class...

- The role of ICBMs in rocket development

- Anti-Satellite developement

- Early Satellites and Kosmos

𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed revision

As explained in the talk on German influence on Soviet rocketry the statement "...after 1947 the Soviets made very little use of German specialists and their influence on the future Soviet rocket program was marginal" (in the Origins: German influence section) contains a biased view and should be modified as follows (for example): "Until the early 1950s, the captured German specialists designed concept studies which inspired and catalyzed essential features of Soviet rocketry." SchmiAlf (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You are probably correct that the Soviets used German specialists until the early 50's. What extent this influenced their work will have to reflect the specific analysis given by more than one source ideally.

Helmut Gröttrup and others captivity on Gorodomlya Island could be specifically mentioned in place of making a vague statement like you suggest.

In the American space programme, Von Braun was NASA director and is credited as being the mastermind of rocket development. However for the Soviets the 'mastermind' was Korolev. However insights from captured German specialists about aerodynamics and propulsion might have played a significant role I'm sure. Again however, this needs to be quoted from Multiple sources. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that this issue has been comprehensively discussed with Asif Siddiqi in December 2023 refer Discussion with Asif Siddiqi about German influence on the Soviet space program. Suggest Editors read Siddiqi’s comments prior to any edits being made to the article. Ilenart626 (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As can be seen from the diff in July 2022 there was detailed content on German influence. At this time, @Ilenart626 created (and linked) a new article, German influence on the Soviet space program, later renamed to German influence on Soviet rocketry. From the outset, he downplayed the German influence as "marginal after 1947". Several new sources which I provided during the later dispute led to nothing but blaming me for own research etc. Meanwhile I consolidated my findings in this peer-reviewed article German Contributions to Soviet Rocketry: New Light on a Disputed Topic for Quest, a science magazine which received the 2015 Ordway Award for Continued Excellence in Space History. It contains substantial material unknown to Asif Siddiqi and complements several episodes in Boris Chertok's Rockets and People. For the latest dispute see this talk. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

@Ilenart626 would you care to elaborate the problems with the lead changes I made? I'm very open to suggestions for trimming away less relevant areas e.g. Venera and Phobos. And the image change is understandably contestable. But the lead as is is overly verbose, and lacking key details. I would think the mentions of Roscosmos and Ukraine legacy, splitting the achievements between a crewed and uncrewed paragraph, mentioning the ISS legacy, are all very reasonable. Doeze (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

My main concern was replacing this section of the lead:

Other milestones included computerized robotic missions exploring the Moon starting in 1959: being the first to reach the surface of the Moon, recording the first image of the far side of the Moon, flying the first animals around the Moon, and achieving the first soft landing on the Moon. The Soviet program also achieved the first space rover deployment with the Lunokhod programme in 1966, and sent the first robotic probe that automatically extracted a sample of lunar soil and brought it to Earth in 1970, Luna 16.

With the following:

The Soviet crewed lunar programs were unsuccessful as the super heavy-lift N1 rocket was cancelled after four failed launches, while the Soyuz 7K-LOK mother ship and LK lander only tested uncrewed in Earth orbit. The Apollo–Soyuz joint mission with the US became an emblem of the détente in the Cold War.

I believe this is placing to much negativity in the lead by deleting the successful accomplishments and replacing it with the negative accomplishments. My understanding it is normal practice in Wiki to focus on the positive aspects in the lead.Ilenart626 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

That's understandable. However my edit did not replace that section; it contained the following:

Soviet computerized robotic missions achieved further milestones. The Luna program achieved the first flyby, first lunar impactor, first image of the far side of the Moon, first animals around the Moon, first soft landing on the Moon, and first robotic sample return of lunar soil with Luna 16 in 1970. The Lunokhod program deployed the first lunar rover in 1966. The Soviets concentrated on the Venera and Mars programs of interplanetary exploration.

Further I would argue under WP:LEAD: "establish context ... including any prominent controversies", this should probably include the nature of the Soviet failure to match the US crewed lunar landing. From my perspective I was being very generous by mentioning the successful LOK and LK tests. I am happy to restore the edit with the N1 left currently unmentioned. But on principle the lead should find a way to mention the program's super heavy lifts, N1 and Energia, somehow. Doeze (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not believe either the N1 or Energia are “… prominent controversies” as detailed in WP:LEAD, I would argue that it would be WP:UNDUE to include any mention of Soviet failures in the Lead. This is also the current practice in the NASA lead which makes no mention of any US failures. If we follow your logic of "establish context ... including any prominent controversies" the NASA lead would include the Shuttle disasters. This is also the same approach for CNSA and JAXA articles, which do not include any mention of failures in their space programs.

In particular, your comment of “ this should probably include the nature of the Soviet failure to match the US crewed lunar landing” is WP:UNDUE. Why the narrow focus on “US crewed lunar landing”? Ilenart626 (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt to limit bias and objectively present many facets of the program, "US crewed lunar landing" is not a "narrow focus", our hands are tied by reliable sources widely considering it the culmination of the space race and one of the most important events of the 20th century. I don't think there is a reasonable case for excluding an N1 mention from the lead. However, its not a hill I'm willing to die on, I would rather get other structure and detail changes to the lead approved, like the further Mir, ISS, Venus and Mars details I suggested. Doeze (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, the article does not mention who inherited the Soviet program. It is strange to mention Ukraine (alongside Russia) specifically and not any of the other republics as the primary inheritors of the program. What is this even based on? Once again, MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADREL applies. Your proposed lead is also far too long. Mellk (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I have made sure a sourced legacy section is included to support that claim. As for the length I would welcome extensive trimming to bring it closer to 400-500 words, but I would still like to push for the crewed uncrewed split, greater focus on the legacy, and the multi image over the video. Per MOS:LEADELEMENTS and WP:LEADIMAGE, images seem to be more recommended than videos. Doeze (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

May I suggest the following, which is under 500 words. Any suggested trims are welcome.

The Soviet space program (Russian: Космическая программа СССР, romanized: Kosmicheskaya programma SSSR) was the state space program of the Soviet Union, active from 1951 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Unlike its Space Race competitor, the United States, which consolidated its space progrma under NASA, the Soviet space program was divided between several competing design bureaus led by Korolev, Kerimov, Keldysh, Yangel, Glushko, Chelomey, Makeyev, Chertok and Reshetnev. Several of these were subordinated to the Ministry of General Machine-Building. The Soviet space program served as an important marker of claims by the Soviet Union to its superpower status. After 1991, the program was inherited primarily by Russia's Roscosmos, as well as Ukraine's State Space Agency.

Soviet investigations into rocketry began with the formation of the Gas Dynamics Laboratory in 1921, and these endeavors expanded during the 1930s and 1940s. In the years following World War II, both the Soviet and United States space programs utilised German V-2 rocket technology in their early efforts at space programs. In the 1950s, the Soviet program was formalized under the management of Sergei Korolev, who led the program based on concepts pioneered by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, considered a father of astronautics and rocketry.

Competing in the Space Race with the US' NASA, the Soviet space program was notable in setting many records in space exploration, including the first intercontinental missile (R-7 Semyorka) that launched the first satellite (Sputnik 1) and first animal (Laika the dog) into Earth orbit in 1957, and first human into space in 1961, Yuri Gagarin. The Vostok program saw the first woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova, in 1963 and Voskhod 2 the first spacewalk in 1965. The Apollo–Soyuz joint mission with the US became an emblem of the détente in the Cold War.

From the 1970s, Soviet program pivoted towards space stations in low Earth orbit . The world's first, Salyut 1 was launched in 1971, and the first modular space station, Mir, in 1986. The Interkosmos program sent the first citizens of a countries other than the United States or Soviet Union into space. The International Space Station's Russian segment, especially its Zvezda and Zarya modules, derive from Soviet technology. The primary Soviet spaceport, Baikonur Cosmodrome, is now in Kazakhstan, which leases the facility for Russia.

Soviet computerized robotic missions achieved further milestones. The Luna program achieved the first flyby, first lunar impactor, first image of the far side of the Moon, first animals around the Moon, first soft landing on the Moon, and first robotic sample return of lunar soil with Luna 16 in 1970. The Lunokhod program deployed the first lunar rover in 1966. The Soviets concentrated on the Venera and Mars programs of interplanetary exploration. Soviet missions to Venus achieved the first flyby, first impact, first soft landing, first surface imaging, and first atmospheric flight on another planet, and the first impact and first soft landing on Mars. Doeze (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

References