Talk:Vostochny Cosmodrome

Probably found an error

can anybody check this? Currently it says: "Satellites bound for geostationary orbit and high inclination orbits can be currently launched from Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northwestern Russia." I'm pretty shure geostationary is wrong. It is the opposite of high inclination! Perhaps the author meant "Polar orbits" or "Molniya orbits"!? I don't have any sources for this but my knwledge from spaceflight lectures in university. Plesetsk is a pretty bad place to launch for geostationary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkracho (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A better place would have been Krasnodar or Primorsky Krai

Being Krasnodar and Primorsky closer to the equator I don´t understand why Amur has been chosen. In fact, Krasnodar would be the better place: good weather, not far from Moscow, as close to the equator as Baikonur...--79.154.36.70 (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I read that it is intended to use the Pacific Ocean as a drop-zone for spent rocket stages. That way they will not fall on anyone's territory and damage the ecology. As to Primorsky, perhaps it's too close a potential military aggressor? Nanobear (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, Vostochny is going to serve mainly for scientific and commercial launches and will have no military defensive facilities, so I don't really see a defensive problem per se. Plesetsk will still handle military and molniya launches, after all. Given that, a costal location in Primorsky would seem more logical, especially as you could then have larger diameter rocket bodies brought in directly by sea - as they do at Kourou (and will do at Hainan) - though they would have a long trip from European Russia for this. As such I think the main reason for this location is to spur development the inland/remote border region with China to bolster Russian presence and claims on the territory. There has been a lot of talk of "loosing the east" and this seems to be a response to that.

Another logical base, and one that could be useful for similar sovereignty issues is Dagestan. More southerly than Baikonur, and with the Caspian providing a drop zone for spent stages. The northern part of the republic is ideal for such a purpose, with flat land right down to the coast (unlike Primorsky), good rail and road access, and large equipment and launch vehicles could be brought in by ship via the Volga-Don system direct from Russian industrial centres, a much shorter journey by water than having to go all along the Northern Sea Route to the Pacific for a Primorsky site. Southern coastal Kalmykia is also good. --138.253.195.77 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone with good Russian language skills have a way to read over some of the geo-location selection criteria for the launch site? It seems that a description of the rationale for locating the spaceport in Amur Oblast rather than in the more southeasternmost Russian region of Primorsky Krai would improve the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

--Nakhodka (port in southern part of Primorsky Krai, near Vladivostok) was a main alternative for Amur oblast. But there were fearness about Japan protests/claims because in such case spaceship trace would located over high-density populated territory of that country. As for sea transport, it has a little significance in Russian spaceship industry, because main centers (Moscow, Samara and Krasnoyarsk) located far from sea. Railways are much more important for transporting. As for Dagestan, it's very unstable and vulnerable for terrostic attacks region with weak and monsterously corrupted economy. It's the worst place for such object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.115.243 (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

I recently addedtwo sentences to the article, with a citation to a reliable source. Another editor reverted, saying in the edit comment: "this doesn't seem to be a reliable source (it's a blog). also, the wording was not neutral"

Per WP:BRD, I'm happy to engage the topic on the Talk page while we work to improve the article.

The sentences I added were:

"In November 2012, press reports indicated that the Russian government is having difficulty in finding a good use for the new spaceport, and that "other government ministries — which are avoiding the project like the plague — have taken to calling the project a 'dolgostroi,' which is Russian for an endless construction boondoggle."

"The first launch from Vostochny unlikely to occur until 2018 at the earliest due to construction delays."

1. The wording of the sentences added maintained WP:NPOV and were consistent with the source.

2. The source is a WP:RS. It is a standard credentialed space press outfit, and is widely used to support WP:V claims in the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

3. If the concern is that the claim should possibly be in a different section of the Wikipedia article, I would agree. I thought about creating a section or subsection entitled "Controversy" -- but was unsure if that one sentence would really justify a separate section.

What specifically did you find to be "non nuetral" about the wording? Was it the words that were quoted form the source? And if it is non-neutral, why not fix the wording because, on Wikipedia, WP:Anyone can edit; so just work to improve the article, rather than deleting material that is verifiably cited. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With no consensus or support for leaving the material out of the article, I have added it back in, as it was originally above. The newsource Parabolic Arc is a standard space media newsource, and is widely used to source spaceflight-related articles in the English wikipedia. I am aware of no discussions on WP:RS or elsewhere that have indicated any questions about Parabolic Arc as a source. I find the language used to be NPOV, as I stated above. If other editors think it can be improved, then edit it, don't delete it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I consider it a problem that the blog post on Parabolic Arc is only an abstract of a far more in-depth analysis of the situation. It is always better to refer to the original article. 91.40.66.103 (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vostochny Cosmodrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120625125626/http://dalss.ru:80/tekusee/2635/ to http://www.dalss.ru/tekusee/2635/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

First launch scheduled for April 27th, 2016.

According to Spaceflight Now, the first launch is scheduled for 0201 GMT on April 27th, 2016. The article should be updated then. John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

51st or 52nd Parallel?

This article starts by stating the location of the cosmodrome "...under construction on the 51st parallel north..." but then later states, "The planned total area is 551.5 km^2, being a region approximately 30 km in diameter centred on 51°53′N 128°20′E Coordinates: 51°53′N 128°20′E." Surely then, the site is self-evidently on the 52nd parallel? A minute of latitude is 1.85km and so therefore the middle-northern part of the cosmodrone does actually sit exactly right on top of the 52nd parallel, the northern part of the site even extends roughly 3km to the north of the 52nd parallel. The rest of the launch site circles around the 52nd parallel, with even the southern most perhipery of the cosmodrome site not being far away and obviously much closer to the 52nd than to the 51st parallel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.149.70 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

December 2017

Improved the article creating a separate section about the corruption scandal. That section exists in the corresponding article in Russian. Also added some information about the delay in the payment of wages and rising price tags. Cskamoscow100 (talk) 2:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

"КП телефона" спрашивает-интересуётца ..

Президент уже сказал! Правительство? Или на космодроме все с мешками денег скорее в тайгу! Закопать ..

Могу сигарету оставить докурить.. телефон бесплатно послушаем .. )

176.59.211.12 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)