# Talk:Luna 2

I don't think the image of the pennant is accurate. The panels in the image don't say September, they say "январь", meaning January. January 1959 is when Luna 1 was launched, but I don't know if it carried one of these. Either way, the sphere in the image is not the one described in the article.206.87.134.152 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The official impact time for Luna-2 was 00:02:24 on Sept 14, *Moscow Time*, as stated in Pravda and other sources.  Converting that to UTC gives us Sept 13 at 21:02:24.  I'm replacing the incorrect "Sept 14 at 22:02:24".  I checked and there was no daylight savings time in Russia in 1959, so I don't know where 22 hours came from.  The mission time was about 38 hours and 23 minutes, not "33.5 hours".  DonPMitchell (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you switch the times (but not the dates) for launch and landing you'll end up with 33 hours, 37 minutes and 18 seconds - roughly 33.5 hours.
Launch date: 1959-09-12 at 21:02:24 UTC
Lunar landing: 1959-09-13, 06:39:42 UTC
However I've seen reliable sources indicating that Luna 2 hit the Moon at 21:02:24 UTC, so NASA's calculation [1] might be erroneously - who said Mars Climate Orbiter? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been 50 years since this very historic event, and less than 10 years after this, humans were doing the landing, albeit a bit slower.Que-Can (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There are two stamps that gives the time as 22:02:24 (see Commons). Not the most definitive resource in the world, but a couple more data points. If I find other resources I will post them here as well. Kees08 (Talk) 22:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Some confirmation.[2][3][4] ----- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems like two of those are tied to the initial announcement. I am curious if the initial announcement was wrong, and if it was corrected a short time later. Some 1960s sources would be a good timeframe to check. Kees08 (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am confused. I am just dumping sources.
Here is a book by Zdeněk Kopal that gives time "22:02:24 UTC" [5] ----- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Science writer Ian Ridpath translates the stamps you mentioned as "21.02.24 UT". [6]
American Astronautical Society from 1967 that gives "21:02:23 (UT)". [7] ----- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Luna 2 Soviet moon probe.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The only sources I can find that the pennant was vaporized copy http://mentallandscape.com/V_Pennants.htm almost verbatim. mentallandscape.com seems to be a personal blog, so not usable as a reliable source. The vaporization of the pennants also isn't mentioned in the official report, but that's not surprising given the patriotic nature of the pennants. It seems obvious from simple calculations that the pennants did vaporize, but without source should the sentence just be deleted?ʊserdude here 20:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have deleted the sentence as it indeed appears to be pure speculation. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that this cited source distinguishes between "impact" (as a deliberate mission objective) and "crash" (as an accidental outcome when the mission is a controlled landing). Elizium23 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Autodidact1: I am surveying the sources cited in this article - are you? They consistently use "impact" and "impacted" and they do not use "crash". Elizium23 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
While we're on dictionary-definition trivialities, wikt:prolix means "Tediously lengthy; verbose; dwelling on trivial details." So "impacted" contains 8 letters, vs. 7 letters in "crashed" -- hmm, I don't think that the spacecraft's scientists are the prolix ones here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The legacy section talks about "The sphere presented to the US" but the article doesn't explain anything about any sphere being presented.   Some clarification would help. Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the sphere-shaped pennant, which are described that way repeatedly, although not in the exact sentence where Krushchev's presentation is mentioned. So I guess in isolation, there may be some confusion. Since the grammar needed fixing anyway, I've clarified it. Elizium23 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As of this writing, the article says, "Luna 1 and the three spacecraft of Luna programme before it were part of the Ye-1 series of spacecraft with a mass of 156 kilograms (344 lb) ... [Luna 2] was the second of the Ye-1a series, modified to carry a heavier payload of 156 kilograms (344 lb)." Note that this says 156kg is heavier than 156kg.
I can't check the reference (HARVEY) because it's a book and not obviously online. IAmNitpicking (talk) 03:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the following:
"Donald W. Cox wrote in his 1962 book The Space Race:
Although the Sputniks and Luniks did not themselves provide better cars, refrigerators, color TV sets, and homes for the peasants and laborers of the Soviet Union and her satellite states, they did evoke added inspiration for the earthbound followers of the communist way of life helping to take their minds off shortages of consumer goods. The people were spurred on to work just a little harder for the glorious motherland and to outstrip the west in the less dramatic and more basic things of life, like coal and steel production."
I believe the McCarthyist, partisan nature of these sorts of commentaries should be at least noted in some way or form. It's essentially a staunch anticommunist connecting two completely unrelated issues in order to get a jab in at the USSR. Does it really belong in an encyclopedia?
It would probably not go down well to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to describe the US's role in the Space Race as, say, distracting Black Americans from segregation and racism, legally mandated or otherwise, by quoting some random US-hating author who happened to conflate the two, with no objective reasoning to justify such a claim.
I haven't made any changes to the article as in my short time here as an editor from a neutral country, I've already learned that there are are issues of systemic bias when it comes to topics like this, with number of accounts that watch US-Russia articles like hawks (or bald eagles?), swooping in to restore/add to any content critical of Russia/the USSR and remove any content critical of the USA. Therefore instead of making any unilateral changes, I thought it would be less dramatic to leave a comment here to see if anybody else agrees with the central premise: That the addition of this quote in its current form isn't particularly encyclopedic. 
As a fairly new editor who doesn't know all of the policies and doesn't have a lot of time to edit, I'm open to suggestions as to how this could be improved.
Cheers! ShabbyHoose (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The top of the page indicates this was a 1950 excursion, when it was actually in 1959 or so 2601:197:580:2D90:8424:F421:C8AB:9692 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)