Talk:Timeline of space exploration

message: All done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this proves how productive a few clicks on Random article can be. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: The concept of space exploration and its timeline seem to be better covered at land.Space exploration#Timeline of space exploration.  What is in this article that is not there is a history of American aeronautical buraucracy and of the history of Robert H. Goddard.  Would anyone object to making this a redirect to the appropriate section of the Space exploration article? Dpv 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all. Except, of course, that you can't re-direct to a section. But a re-direct to the article seems fine. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I had done it before, but the end result was a redirect to the top of the page.  I'll make this one a redirect to the top of the page now. Dpv 12:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make this a redirect perhaps? 

message: Ok the Space Exploration article links to a Timeline of space exploration article which is in desperate need of reform preferably pending discussion however the discussion of that timeline redirects to Talk:Timeline of American space exploration which is obviously an entirely different article as the Timeline of space exploration is almost totally composed of Russian and Soviet triumphal space 'firsts'  (including numerous failed missions as various first 'successes' and omitting an enormous number of 'firsts' by other space agencies).
:I believe I've fixed the talk pages.WolfKeeper 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add stuff to the timeline.WolfKeeper 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect SNAFU 

message: Several entries do not appear to qualify as any sort of "first success".  Is there any particular reason a "timeline of space exploration" should limit itself to largely symbolic "firsts"?  Perhaps the column header should instead say "mission" or "accomplishment"?Zebulin 02:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And we do already have a good list of firsts at Spaceflight records. For this list I would say that, for instance, the two current Mars rovers are significant although they are not the first Mars landers or even the first Mars rovers. Rmhermen 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, all of this first nonsense looks ridiculously competitive if not nationalistic. Many of the firsts can be deleted as being manifestly obvious by virtue of the associated dates. It's a timeline after all. Some uses of the word first, such as for Sputnik being the first artificial satellite, should remain only for truly important events.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.19.9 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Success" 

message: The article was divided at 1942 - the V2 was the first in 1942, and that makes sense.  I started divisions with Sputnik 1 and with Gargain's flight.  I ended the latter division with Apollo 11 because that was the culmination of an era.  I started another division with the Shuttle.  Those are the reasons for my divisions - I like to start a division with something new, but I thought it appropriate to end an era with Apollo 11.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the succession of moon landings constituted part of the same era as Apollo 11.  They were the same program after all.  If we must divide by era I would suggest putting all Apollo missions in the next era.  Also, additional missions may be added to the article and we want it to be obvious to future editors where those missions should be placed if they happen to be in 1969 or another year that coincides with one end of an era.Zebulin (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean all Apollo landing missions should be in the same section, so have 1969-1980 and start with Apollo 11?  My thoughts were that most of the manned space program of the 1960s culminated in Apollo 11.Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: what does that mean?  can you rephrase that?  Apollo 11 was far from the last word in lunar exploration.  In any event we need it to be clear to any naive reader of the articles what exactly the divisions are.Zebulin (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean is that after Shepard's flight, the US manned space program was geared towards the moon landing.  Apollo 11 was the culmination of that effort.  Effectively the end of the "space race".  As you said on the other article, it should be clear which period was the "space race".  Bubba73 (talk), 03:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather end it with the Apollo-soyuz so that all of the Apollo missions are lumped together especially since Apollo 17 seems far more like the end of a chapter than Apollo 11 does both technically and politically.Zebulin (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a very good point.  One drawback is that it makes the section from there to the Shuttle pretty small, and I selected the first Shuttle launch as the start of a new era.  But 1942-1957 is pretty small too.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I wonder if it's fair for us to organize the timeline so closely around manned spaceflight when so much of space exploration has involved unmanned spacecraft.  That could be broken up according to the suborbital era, followed by the brief earth/lunar satellite era, followed by the inner planetary exploration era and finally the outer solar system and beyond era.  A simple breakup into 'decades' might work too with the only oddball being the multi-decade pre sputnik section.  That has the advantage of requiring the least explanatory notation.Zebulin (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the V2 and Sputnik are two unmanned ones that start new sections.  I thought one objective was to show the space race era, but you can do the sections as you think is best.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisions by years 

message: Due to the very nature of logos there will never be free images available to identify the ESA and Intelsat ltd.  Only fair use would ever be an option and all such appeals to fair use are these days summarily deleted and removed.  Rather than assigning inaccurately associated flag images (ie the UN flag or the EU flag) to these non state actors I think we should simply leave the small copyvio notification images indefinitely as they are not misleading and at once make it perfectly clear why there is no image available.Zebulin (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "flag" image (logo) for non government or transgoverment agencies 

message: Since Herman Potočnik Noordung is being listed at the spreadsheet, I have doubts on the country flag under which he is presented. He was Slovene by nationality and his book was published in German because of his education and the official language of that time being German. And, moreover, the book was published in Berlin, "Richard Carl Schmidt Verlag" being the publisher. So - which flag do we put there? His original one or the "publishing location" one? Thank you. Blaz Sef (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herman Potočnik's nationality issue 

message: What exactly is the significance of the Anik A1?  I'm pretty sure I remember there being something important about it from a world perspective, but I can't figure out what.  Currently in this article, it is only listed as the first Canadian one, which isn't significant from a world perspective.  On its own article it is described as the "world's first national domestic" satellite.  What does that actually mean?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anik A1 

message: Long-standing proposal; discussion at Talk:List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969#Merge with Timeline of space exploration?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.9.89 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is a long-standing proposal.  I started the "milestones" article but I am not opposed to a merger - there is a lot of overlap.  The emphasis in "milestones" is different, though - it groups them by the type of achievement and it concentrates on "firsts".  At the time I didn't know about similar articles. As I found them I listed them under See Also.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of "Timeline of space exploration" and "List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969" 

message: I noticed that there was an entry for the first photograph of the whole solar system, but not one for the first photograph of the whole Earth.  These photos have become iconic, and I'd say that it should be listed.  It's not clear what the criteria should be for the "first", however.  Should pictures that show part of the Earth in shadow count?  I would have thought that a full diameter should be visible at least.  The highest-impact pictures are certainly those that show the full Earth in sunlight, but are they that much more historically significant than the earlier ones?  A few candidate images (and source info) are here: http://www.donaldedavis.com/2003NEW/NEWSTUFF/DDEARTH.html and here: http://sciencetrack.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-photo-of-whole-earth.html (not my sites, other sites exist, etc.).  Any thoughts? 86.7.31.97 (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First photograph of the whole Earth? 

message: The Table entry for 1918 appears to be either missing words or clarifying commas to make the sentence readable. "Goddard files for, and is subsequently awarded, ..."  SquashEngineer (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  1914 grammar 

message: Me thinks that the "update" tag should be removed, as the article looks fully updated to me. Unless keeping it would mean that when something major happened in space history, then someone would automatically update this article? In that case "LET THE GAMES BEGIN!"
Shirugaki (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Shirugaki|Shirugaki]] ([[User talk:Shirugaki|talk]]) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of space exploration. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140221145846/http://media.airspacemag.com/images/1stPhotoFromSpace.jpg to http://media.airspacemag.com/images/1stPhotoFromSpace.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331174421/http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/20th_far_voyagers.html to http://filer.case.edu/sjr16/advanced/20th_far_voyagers.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070219132314/http://pages.prodigy.net/pxkb94ars/Timeline/index.html to http://pages.prodigy.net/pxkb94ars/Timeline/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Soviet, not American, look it up. The pictures were unusable, but there is a very American bias throughout this whole list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:143F:E281:1:1:D1EC:C39F (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First pictures from Martian surface 

message: "17 April 1976: Closest flyby of the Sun (43.432 million kilometers)." As far as I understand, this information is already out of date. Parker Solar Probe made the closest up to now flyby of the Sun. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already edited that 1976 item. Maybe, somebody else will add the information about Parker Solar Probe. :) --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closest flyby of the Sun 

message: The recent DART mission got me to look into the records, and on July 4, 2005, the Deep Impact spacecraft was the first to impact a comet. And now on September 26, 2022, DART became the first spacecraft to impact an asteroid. 
I will add both of those to "Timeline of space exploration" since I noticed they weren't on the page. If you have any issue with it just reply to this subject. LouisPasteurGaming (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Was’nt the Hayabusa2 the first to impact an asteroid?  Perhaps we should say “smashed into” thats how the news presenter I just watched described it, lol.  Maybe something along the lines of impacted in an attempt to deflect an asteroid, as I believe the Japanese satelite impacted to stir up material to capture and return the samples to Earth.  Ilenart626 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "First attempt to deflect an asteroid" is definitely more fitting, thanks for the input. "First spacecraft to impact an asteroid moon" is already quite straightforward however. LouisPasteurGaming (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  First spacecraft to impact an asteroid/a comet 

message: The assertion that oxygen production on Mars is the "first extraction of a natural resource from another planet for human use" obviously straight-up untrue. The oxygen produced on Mars by Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment is not for human use. There were no humans on Mars when the experiment was conducted, haven't been any humans on Mars since, and there will not be any humans on Mars in the near future either. TompaDompa (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: True. CodemWiki (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also dubious to call the production of oxygen from carbon dioxide "extraction of a natural resource". TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it. CodemWiki (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  First extraction of a natural resource from another planet for human use 

message: Title Ff442 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to a add Chandrayaan-3 as first landing near lunar south pole