Talk:Dnepr (rocket)

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight

	Spaceflight portal This 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

R-36M2 or R-36MUTTH

I've always assumed that the Dnepr was the MUTTH subversion of the R-36, the Kosmotran website doesn't specify, astronautix claims its the M2 subversion while Pavel Podvig claims its the MUTTH version because the M2 can't be launched from Baikonur. Anybody got an idea which version is really used? Thanks (link to Pavel Podvig: http://russianforces.org/blog/2006/07/everything_has_limits.shtml#comments)

Suggestions for improving the article

I'd like to see some information about the lifting capacity. Is it a heavy-lift vehicle? I am curious because of the news about the July 27 crash; if it carried 18 satellites at once, either they were microsatellites, or this is a heavy-lift vehicle.

They were microsatellites, except BelKA. The lifting capacity is nearly 3,700 kg into a 300 km high orbit. --Bricktop 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a nice image of one of these rockets taking off, but I'm not sure how to get it up. =/ The file location is "Image:http://www.space.com/images/v_bigelow_dnepr_02.jpg" (Credit: ISC Kosmotras).

Older discussion

Articles must be moved using Wikipedia's move function. If you copy-paste "move" them, you lose the edit history which must be preserved according to Wikipedia's GFDL licence. If the move function doesn't work, then you must post a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Michael Z. 2005-07-2 06:22 Z

Moving didn't work. Why are YOU using the ukrainian name when the whole world names the rocket Dnepr (some examples: [1], [2])? Can you explain it? And please provide some reasons that a non-ukrainian can also understand. And Kosmotras - the launch services provider - calls the rocket also Dnepr. And if you look at some photos of the rocket, you'll see a big inscription on the launch vehicle which reads as "Dnepr". The only serious source calling the rocket Dnipro is the homepage of NSAU. --Bricktop 2 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

It's a Ukrainian rocket, and the Ukrainian space agency which is responsible for it uses the Ukrainian name, in both Ukrainian and English web pages.

Of course a Russian subcontractor would use the Russian name; I'm sure the international enterprises at Baikonur and Sea Launch use Russian to communicate, rather than forcing the Russians to learn Ukrainian. But saying "the whole world" uses the Russian name is false, and I could quote counter-examples out of the 5000 Google hits for Dnipro rocket. The stamp is a good example; even though the image of the rocket has the international Russian name, the stamp calls it Dnipro. —Michael Z. 2005-07-2 14:23 Z

I didn't especially think of russian sources, rather of (all?) international sources, which use the "russian" name. And the official launch services provider (not only a subcontractor), which also use the "russian" name. Therefor I think wikipedia should also use this name. --Bricktop 2 July 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Ukrainian and Russian (and Kazakhstan's) satellite and rocket manufacturing and launch industries are highly integrated. Joint enterprises are conducted in the lingua franca of the former Soviet Union, Russian, as is joint publicity and marketing. Consequently romanized Russian appears on the side of the rockets destined for the international Sea Launch facility, and Google results favour "Dnepr rocket" over "Dnipro rocket" by about three to one. Even Yuzhnoe, the Ukrainian manufacturer, uses Russian and English on its web site.

Nevertheless, this is a Ukrainian rocket, and the Ukrainian Space Agency uses the Ukrainian name, in both Ukrainian and English publication. I don't understand how the usage of one particular Russian company is more relevant here. —Michael Z. 2005-07-4 18:31 Z

As from your own arguments I would preffer using the "russian" name instead of the "ukrainian". But it's not my problem, if you want to use it, do it so. I don't want and don't have the time to discuss such political things --Bricktop 4 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Actually I saw a Defense News last month where it was called "Dnepr". Google test [3], [4] for whatever it's worth, gives the latter an about 100 times advantage. I say that we can still keep the "Dnipro" name if NSAU calls it so at the official page, but we should still make sure the article clearly says that it is better known as "Dnepr". Or we could move the article. Either way is fine with me. I would not have brought it up if I haven't run accross it in the "Defence News" at the first place. --Irpen 05:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be offended, but I think googlefight sucks. Google exact phrase search is more useful. Results below are English-language pages only. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 06:45 Z

Well, I didn't say it is definite and I am not saying we should move an article. But perhaps mentioning "Dnepr" as "also known as..." or "better known as..." is worthwile. That's all I meant. "Defense news" is one of the leadin industry publications and it's usage is indicative. --Irpen 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 07:12 Z

Also, a google test with quotation marks exludes many pages. "Dnipro rocket" search would not catch either "rocket Dnipro" string or a "Dnipro, a Ukrainian rocket". I ran a googlefight without quotation marks. With the quoation marks removed from the whole phrase we get 25,000[5] vs 5,000[6] and 14,000[7] vs 160[8], respectively, and all in favor of "Dnepr". I was actually surprized that "Dnieper" had so little usage. --Irpen 07:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All this is somewhat ridiculous. I work in the rocket industry, and I have never, ever, seen Dnipro used by anyone. It's always called Dnepr... Kosmotras itself uses Dnepr as a name in its English language documents. If you are so keen on using national naming conventions, I will ask Napoleon to be moved to Napoléon... Hektor 23:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there is a big logo on the rocket, which is written in Russian and reads as "Dnepr". I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be the official name of the rocket. --Bricktop 12:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is another example. See Lamest edit wars ever, the entry about Kiev. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)

Hektor, where do you wee an edit war? --Irpen 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is the quote: "Kiev, the capital of Ukraine has the (mis)fortune of having a Russian name that clearly is internationally more widely known than the Ukrainian name. The best efforts of Ukraine's government to legislate what is the right version of their capital's name in the English-speaking world led only to edit and revert wars in Wikipedia, as some editors did not heed the country's own government, insisting that the best-known version should be used, and in the end they won. Since it was unthinkable that any of the warring camps were wrong in their contentions, it must have been the NPOV policy that was faulty. " So Kiev has been selected over Kyiv. I think the same rule should apply here. Hektor 06:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed article

Aloha, I took the liberty to renew the whole article. I've mainly used the Dnepr name because it's more commonly used. The Dnipro name smacks of politics which is already out of control in the space industry. I could use some help on the table, because I'm not that satisfied that the dates of launches don't fit in a single cell. I've left the moon mission out since no news has been heard of Transorbital in years, the company which sold the idea. Any additions and corrections are welcome of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.89.227.223 (talk • contribs) .

Cheers. I've taken the liberty to reformat the table. Hope it looks okay in your browser. —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 20:04 Z

Thanks, looks much better

Moving the article?

Can we discuss moving the article or this is too inflammatory of a problem? To me this seems a no brainer. --Irpen 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. —Michael Z. 2006-08-02 20:20 Z

OK, instead of voting, let's just find out first whether voting is necessary. With the information given above, does anyone favor the current name over the industry standard Dnepr launch vehicle? If so, please state your objections. If anyone thinks that the question is POV phrased, please rephrase it your way before answering. Thanks, --Irpen 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I favor the current article's name. The launch vehicle is developed and produced in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, and the name is derived from Dnipro river. --KPbIC 22:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Note that how the name is derived is irrelevant. Besides, Dnieper is an international river and Dnipro is as much valid as its name as Dnepr. That missile was developed in Ukraine is a fact that no one is denying. But the name used for it since its origin by everyone, including the Ukrainians in Dnipropetrovsk who designed and constructed it, was derived from the Russian name of the Dnieper river and the name gained usage in the industry. Wikipedia is not the vehicle to push for a name change in the usage, be it in this article or any other, rather it should reflect the names usage. So it would be illogical to not use the name accepted in the entire industrial community and favor the name virtually unknown in the field and media as displayed at talk. --Irpen 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, since its origin (late 1990s) the Dnipro rocket has been known under "Dnipro" name, especially by Ukrainians in Dnipropetrovsk. --KPbIC 02:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof of that? And not of "Дніпро" but of comparable usage of "Dnipro" in English to "Dnepr" as the name of the launcher. --Irpen 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You went too far making a claim about Ukrainians in Dnipropertovsk. Speaking on usage in English, here is one link on the website of the Federation of American Scientists. How many more do you need? 10? 100? 1,000? --KPbIC 05:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below. --Irpen 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See googling above. --KPbIC 07:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific where above? --Irpen 07:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Older discussion" above, in which you participated. --KPbIC 07:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that and google counts given in that section heavily support Dnepr, so I can't get what's your point. --Irpen 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not heavily, but the point is that "Dnipro" is, by itself, an established name for the launch vehicle.

The second point, in the discussion on Kiev Oblast dispite the fact that the expression "Kyiv Oblast" is around 15 times more wide-spread on the Internet comparing to "Kiev Oblast" you were arguing for the latter. Why did you ignore googling there, and use it as an argument here? --KPbIC 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Dnipro launch vehicle/Answer to an unrelated question, no value to the rest of discussion --Irpen 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else has an opinion? --Irpen 23:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usage of Dnepr is much more common: just do a little Google-Fight:

"Dnepr rocket" -wikipedia 68.000 results
"Dnipro rocket" -wikipedia 166 results
"Dnepr launch vehicle" -wikipedia 536 results
"Dnipro launch vehicle" -wikipedia 10 results

I guess, this shows clearly, which name is used --Gunter.krebs 05:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above we should use the vastly wider known name "Dnepr" instead of "Dnipro" (which I first heard in this article). --Bricktop 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour Dnepr rocket as the name "Dnepr" is more common, and also, as it is Russian, Dnepr is technically a "carrier rocket" as opposed to a "launch vehicle" (although nobody told ISC Kosmatros). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Move --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Dnipro launch vehicle → Dnepr rocket — Simple case of WP:NC/most common name - Dnepr is more common internationally than Dnipro. Google search results clearly illustrate this: --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name	Search term		Total
Name	"Rocket"	"Launch Vehicle"	Total
Dnepr	48,400	32,600	81,000
Dnipro	717	562	1,279

Poll

Support

GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hektor 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shoogerbrugge (main author of article)
Next vote to support

Oppose

First vote to oppose

Discussion

Guys, please take this to WP:RM, as move can't be completed anyway without admin help. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is at WP:RM. It should be completed today. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't need admin anyway - I am closing discussion and have moved page due to consensus after more than 5 days. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction

It says on the EgyptSat 1 page that the satellite was launched. But on this page is says in row 11 that it is "planned". This must be a contradiction. --Ysangkok 21:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not and maybe even more delayed. --TAG 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurray! It launched. Sdsds 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICBM conversions or new production

This article asserts Dnepr rockets are converted ICBMs, but R-36#Derivatives indicates Yuzhmash is producing new ones specifically for orbital space launches. Is there a citable source for either of these assertions? (sdsds - talk) 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is stockpile. No source, but the whole point of the Dnepr programme is to get rid of surplus rockets, so it would be counterproductive to build new ones. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dnepr (rocket). 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:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sstl.org/index.php?loc=27&id=151
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060711163222/http://astronautix.com/lvs/r36m2.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/r36m2.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]