Talk:Cosmos 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSpaceflight Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: Technology & engineering Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.

Physics of Cosmos 1[edit]

The statement: "With increasing distance from the Sun, fewer photons collide per unit time and acceleration decreases even further." is true, but does not apply to Cosmos 1. This only applies for a solar sail orbitting the Sun. Since the craft remains in earth orbit the distance to the Sun will not change significantly. Also, the acceleration due to sunlight is not constant for an Earth orbitting sail. The craft spends some part of each orbit in the shadow of the Earth, it spends part of each orbit moving toward the Sun (during this time the sail is tilted "edge on" to prevent sunlight from slowing the spacecraft) and only for a portion of the orbit does the sunlight increase the energy of the orbit. The accleration of the craft would then increase slightly each orbit but it would not be constant. --Mu301 14:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For more information about the dynamics of the Cosmos 1 orbit see orbital motion calculations at KIA Systems. This is a design study from 2001 modeling the orbit changes for the Cosmos 1 mission. --Mu301 15:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

who is Wogman?[edit]

I've never heard of any Dr. Darren Wogman in connection with solar sails, and I do not believe that such a person was ever involved in the development of the solar sail technology - the concept, the Mylar, the Cosmos 1 spacecraft, or anything. Indeed Google only returns one functioning hit on "Darren Wogman" and none on "Wogman, Darren." Therefore, I've deleted the following from the story: "using the pioneering technology from Dr. Darren Wogman." Since Cosmos 1 is in the news, there are probably a lot of people visiting this article, so it's important that it be accurate. I'd rather err on the side of caution and just take out the Wogman reference. Is there anyone who would like to see it put back in? -Centurion328 10:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a vanity page, created from a spree of vanadlism by user --Madchester 15:00, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

launch date uncertain[edit]

The Cosmos 1 mission homepage states:

The Cosmos 1 spacecraft will be shipped to the launch area in mid May. Until then we have put our countdown on hold. The actual launch date will be announced during the week of May 16.

Also, I made minor changes to the Cosmos 1 information in the solar sail article.

--Mu301 18:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


discussion about how, exactly, solar sails work (and the momentum of photons) moved to solar sail. (Should I have moved it to photon instead ?) -- 00:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's next?[edit]

Does anyone have information as to what's going to happen next, assuming that Cosmos 1 is lost? If it has crashed, what are the chances that the spacecraft will be salvageable? Did Moscow provide any guarantees and/or have any responsibilities wrt the successful launch? Will it require another $4 mil to finish and launch another spacecraft, or is Russian military going to refund any money because of the failure? --Itinerant1 20:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the spacecraft failed to deploy, it's probably lost (capsule would have crashed into the ocean). If it deployed while in a low orbit, I'm not sure how much you'll get back in one piece (it's big and light enough that it _might_ not heat up too much on re-entry, but I wouldn't bet on it). Spacecraft launches are typically insured to cover the costs of a failed launch, so the Planetary Society will probably get back at least some of the money invested in the project. For official answers, though, check the Planetary Society's press releases and web page.--Christopher Thomas 20:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i seriously doubt the russian military would ever agree on a contract where they pay when the launch fails Boneyard 09:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Really?? Whoa. Spacecraft insurance. - Omegatron 21:49, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
The Cosmos team looks like they are downgrading the chance they think it might have survived. That's based off of the weblog linked to in the article, and the most recent set of Google News articles. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any mention of the it being an insured launch. (As litigation costs go up, fewer are these days.) It might be that on a limitted budget they didn't have enough money to pay for the insurance. Although you'd think they would after they lost the last one... (-- (talk · contribs))
Looks like they did have insurance after all. Update That might need to be mentioned somewhere. 06:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that link you found refers to the fact that they had insurance for the 2001 sub-orbital test; it does not say whether they had insurance for the 2005 orbital one. --Centurion328 12:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why a submarine?[edit]

Why was it launched from a submarine? I've never heard of probes or satellites being launched that way. Are there advantages, if so, what? -- Tarquin 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because it was cheap. :) The used rocket type is a modified ICBM, that was designed to be launched from a submarine. So, you better launch it that way.Awolf002 14:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The US wanted to see if the Russians would fire the *right* missile. ;) --Kross 21:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Received Signals May Have Come from Cosmos 1 in Orbit[edit]

It should be noted on July 1, 2005, that Dr. Viacheslav Linkin, project Science Manager from IKI, stated that we have almost certain received signals from the spacecraft after it was injected into orbit. Is it true or not? - Omegatron 13:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Data from Kamchatka-Panska Ves came from Cosmos 1 and being analyzed?[edit]

The team from the Space Research Institute and The Planetary Society analyzing the tracking data has now ruled out the possibility that any signals received at the Panska Ves station in the Czech Republic came from the spacecraft. The signal received at the Majuro portable station in the Marshall Islands is also unlikely to have come from the spacecraft. But the Kamchatka data looks very much consistent with having come from Cosmos 1. Do you think the team needs additional data before we can reach an independent conclusion about whether or not the Volna’s stages separated and the spacecraft’s orbit insertion motor fired. With that information, we will be better able to chart our course for the next flight of a solar sail. When we'll receive an independent conclusion about whether or not the Volna’s stages separated and the spacecraft’s orbit insertion motor fired? Is Cosmos 1 officially declared lost?

Cosmos 1 referred to as "The Great Experiment"?[edit]

... I thought that if this mission failed, I would come back devastated and in a mood to give up. - Louis Friedman, The Planetary Society Executive Director and Project Manager of Cosmos 1

Cosmos 1 is usually refered by some as the "Great Experiment" because it uses sails that is pushed by sunlight and thus it offers a great promise as a platform for future missions: the low-cost system we put together for mission operations, tracking, data handling, and international coordination of a satellite, like the starship Excelsior in the fictional Star Trek universe, testing its new transwarp drive. Its test failed, and Starfleet give up, thereby retrofitting Excelsior and following starships with a conventional warp drive. Ironically, this could apply to subsequent missions (that would use solar sails as their main propulsion) if the mission fails to achieve solar sail flight or declared officially lost (that depends on the conclusion whether or not the spacecraft orbit insertion motor actually fired) and Lou Friedman comes back devastated and in his mood to give up the entire solar sail experiment.


Why is EDT being used in the article? It seems to have no relevance. PDT has little relevance either to the times for which it is listed. I think that the times in question should be converted to UTC, possibly with PDT in parenthesis. Any comments? --GW 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can anyone explain why "Cosmos 1" is italicized in most places in this article? If not, I shall remove all of the italics soon, since this does not appear to be a title that requires italics, such as book titles, ship names, and so forth. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it now. I was viewing Cosmos 1 as the name of the project, but it was also the name of the ship that never made it into orbit, and so it should be italicized. This must be clarified in the lede. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange Terminology[edit]

Could someone explain the strange use of phrasing in the introduction? "Once in orbit, the spacecraft was supposed to deploy a large sail, upon which photons from the Sun would push, thereby increasing the spacecraft's velocity (the contributions from the solar wind are similar, but of much smaller magnitude)." "Photons pushing", "similar to solar winds"... Wouldnt it be much simpler and clearer to say something along the lines of "would use solar radiation pressure to accelerate the spacecraft"? Seems needlessly roundabout (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To me, rather than "strange" I'd call it simplified, perhaps overly so, I don't know. I did go ahead and add the link, [[Radiation pressure|push]].  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cosmos 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]