Talk:Space Race/Archive 1

message: That’s the optimistic view, and I think a good case can be made.  Instead of a fight in the parking lot, we played a football game.  And if we’re involved in something fun and kind of neat, well, at that point if we blow up each other’s cities, there won’t be too many people left to brag to or they won’t be too much in a frame of mind to pay attention to space accomplishments.  
And importantly, both sides can claim that they won.  How can that be, we got to the Moon first?  Yes, we did get to the Moon first, but there was a lull between Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 and the first flight of the Space Shuttle in 1981.  And meanwhile, Russia was pushing forward with their Salyut space stations.  So, it’s a good argument that cannot be decisively resolved either way.  And this kind of argumentation, like arguing whether Roger Staubach or Terry Bradshaw was the better quarterback, can lead to mutual respect, and in this case I think it did.
The formal part of the Space Race ended in 1975 but it did continue in interesting ways.  It did not really end until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.  
(A personal note, I was in 5th grade in 1973-74.  Sklab astronaut Jack Lousma came to our elementary school and spoke.  Yeah, I’ve been a fan of the space program a long time.)  FriendlyRiverOtter 19:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Space Race helped to defuse Cold War?

message: Russian language history (change years)
http://www.pereplet.ru/space/chrono/1971.html
Does anyone think this should be formatted as a table?
Paranoid 18:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: I reformatted the article, now can someone help me research and expand?   — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:33, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my sword. (I already beefed up the moon race stuff before realising this was a candidate for article collaboration of the week.) I'm going to be away for another week, though, so while I'll be reading up on spacey topics, editing will alas have to wait. --AlexG 15:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Had a big play around - resectionised it all and added images already available. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting

message: Though there is a small mention of China perhaps there is scope for other countries in the space race (past and present).  The following articles mention the UK ventures:
*BBC
*"Britain in Space"
The term "space race" may also now include:
*The first commercial flight(s)
*The first member of the public rocket to reach space (there's a large competition about that but I can't remember the details right now)
violet/riga (t) 21:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not just US and USSR // The new space races 

message: I changed many of the headings to allow a better flow for the reader. Davodd 03:55, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
i dislike the heading "More "space races" to come?" it seems childish--Capt underpants 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading change 

message: As it is now, this article would be better named "space exploration" than "space race." The race itself was just between the U.S. and USSR.
Also, maybe all the "firsts" should be put into a table.
Maurreen 05:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name, table 

message: I've just added an external link to a .PDF document containing a scan of a letter from Von Braun to VP Johnson.  As a newbie I'm sure someone will correct me (and/or it) if it isn't appropriate or should be handled differently, but the letter is a seminal primary source so far as the space race is concerned and Von Braun is spot on - apart from being just a year out - in his conclusions.  Note that he doesn't say anything about the 'returning safely to earth' part! Jerry cornelius 18:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: Does anyone know what these stand for?
*ANIK - not acronym. Canadian communications satellite - Inuit for little brother
*WESTAR - not acronym. Probably AT&T related, such as Western Electric, Telstar (early satellite).
*MARISAT - not acronym. Maritime satellite.
:Maurreen 16:10, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancheta Wis 20:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Satellite acronyms

message: "These scientists formed the core of the U.S. team, led by Wernher von Braun, which began the development of ballistic missiles during the V-2 program decades earlier." 
:I re-phrased the sentence as it implied the US began the development of the ballistic missile, which is historically untrue. The V-2 was first. Ancheta Wis 21:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The V-2 was the first ballistic missile. 

message: I renamed the Deaths section to Mishaps. Apollo 13 had no deaths. Ancheta Wis 13:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out Apollo 13 and changed it back to deahts. Maurreen 14:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apollo 13 had no deaths. Heading is misnamed in that case 

message: When Neil Armstrong was quizzed on his quote, he said it was a mistransmission, and [a] was left out. Ancheta Wis 14:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp is an interesting read about this - perhaps that information should be added in.  As it is the quote is out of place anyway. violet/riga (t) 14:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: (a) good idea. Sfahey 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.''

message: I'm sorry but I don't see how "you can touch moon rock is this museum" is at all relevant in this particular article.  Please reply and explain why before reverting it's removal again and perhaps this can be resolved. violet/riga (t) 18:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon rock 

message: I've just made a series of changes to the talk page, the last of which, I hope, reinstated the version before I made my changes.  I added a long comment to the 'hoax' discussion and then thought better of it after re-reading the article and the links to other wiki pages.  I've also added a link to the article on conspiracy theories.  Apologies for mucking around with this so much and I hope that I haven't erased anything in the process. Jerry cornelius 21:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it - the history and comparison tool is very good - nothing has been lost. violet/riga (t) 21:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: :22:57, 8 Feb 2005 Sfahey (same)
Umm,
:22:00, 8 Feb 2005 Fredrik (remove "see also" section. 1) categories should not be mixed with the article namespace 2) these topics are already covered in the text)
- Fredrik | talk 22:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. I was responding to an "objection" on the FAC nomination which insisted that such a "see also" list should not be within a section of the article. I merged the two lists of "see also"s into one list at the end, after trying to weed out the listings which were linked elsewhere in the text and even moving some of them INTO the text. One difficulty is that the "Categories" links (which someone else had put in) take the reader elsewhere than the same-named other links, so I couldn't justify simply deleting them. Sfahey 23:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the use of the category system is that it provides an automatic "see also" mechanism. The category listings provide a way for the reader to find related articles, so there is no need for this duplication. Note that this article is already in Category:Space exploration, and that Category:Spacecraft, Category:Spacecraft propulsion and Category:Lunar spacecraft are subcategories of this one. Also, the fact that the categories are not the same as the same-named links is not really a good argument. Then we'd have to provide one category link for each regular link. Regular links should always be used. If someone wants to know more about, say, celestial mechanics, it is better to send them to the overview article as they can easily get to Category:Celestial mechanics from there.  Fredrik | talk 00:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories in "See also" section 

message: It says here that the first probe to another planet was by the USSR to Venus with Venera 3. But what about Mariner 2 in 1962? Doesn't that count? It reached Venus, returned information, and succeeded in its mission. bob rulz 21:34, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, Venera was the first satellite that reached another planet, and its the first. What do you mean Mariner 2? It did reach Venus and execute a successful mission, but it wasn't first.
Oyo321 05:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First probe to another planet

message: There is a link in the article for Black Chinese soldiers, which links to the article on "Military history of China."  However, there is no explanation of what a "black Chinese soldier" is.  The term doesn't show up on Google either.  Can anyone enlighten me on this? Sunray 03:38, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
:What it is ... is 1)bogus, and 2)no longer in the article.Sfahey 22:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Chinese Soldiers

message: Where are "Animal in space (fruit flies) - 1946" in "Timeline (1957-1975)" chapter. Is it Spase Race event? ("On 4 October 1957, the USSR successfully launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite to reach orbit, and the Space Race began.")
And what about  "V2 Animal in space in 1946"? Date? Sources? Article in Wikipedia? Links? You can also try http://www.google.com/search?q=Animal+in+space
--ajvol 11:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about the bugs not belonging in that table. Will edit out. Sfahey 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal in space (fruit flies) 

message: I realize that American and Russian space programs overshadowed the Europeans but shouldn't their successes be incoporated in the article by either mentioning or listing with the Soviet and American 
launches?
French successes:
* 1962 First Berenice rocket launched.
* 1963 Animals launched into orbit via Veronique rockets.
* 1965 First French satellite put in orbit.
British: Prospero satellite launched, 1971 in Black Arrow rocket.
Falphin 23:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The is an article about the Space Race. Not a history of space travel or efforts. See space exploration for a more international approach. --Fastfission 00:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice touch, "ff". Sfahey 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd consider the Russians to be "European", more or less. --MacRusgail 15:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Space Race specifies pretty much only the US and the Soviet Union, because it wasn't just a race to the space, but the escalation of the Cold War, which made it wholly more significant.  I don't remember France being in the Space Race, and even if any nation was, all the "firsts" into space were snatched by the Russians first. Oyo321 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European Space Programs

message: Arms race is not capped, but Space Race is. I noticed that there is more links to Space race and even quite a few redirects point there. On 8 January 2005 (my birthday, I was probably drunk and didn't notice the event)  Raul654 moved without so much of discussion. I have a strong urge to move it back. Any opinions? mikka (t) 20:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

message: Why to 1975? Why not 1991? Buran and Energia are parts of the Space Race too.--Nixer 19:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary runners in the Space Race are the US and Soviet Union. No other country can or should be included in the Race. First off, the race was generally all about the Cold War also, wheras only America and the Soviet Union was involved. Second, no other country made significant "firsts" into space or develop new technology. Oyo321 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why to 1975? 

message: Just to let everyone know, according to the last paragraph of the article (as of this writing) the space race could include the modern private entrepenuers of today. I haven't the time to write this but if someone would that would be excellent. Jazzdude00021 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Race Continues... 

message: Dear contributors: please ignore the FARC template at the top. The FARC process has been integrated into a revised Featured Article Review process. This article has been listed for a "major review". Please add your responses. WP:FAR Tony 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new FAR template is at the top of the page. Apologies for any confusion but there were still bugs in the FAR process. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA review 

message: There is a request for a peer review at List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969.  Bubba73 (talk), 00:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for peer review 

message: I'm beginning to work to improve the Space Race, but I see a flaw in the opening picture. The picture, to me, is too biased. The Space Race involved more than one country, so I think instead of an American rocket blasting off to victory, a dual picture of a US and Soviet rocket, or dual Kennedy and Khruschev, or dual country flags would be more appropriate. Anyone else have better ideas? Oyo321 05:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: It is written in the article that Werhner von Braun was the counterpart of Sergei Korolev. Wouldn't Bob Gilruth have been the true counterpart? Gilruth was the NASA director during the Space Race. Korolev was also the Chief Designer of the Russian space program. Von Braun contributed heavily to America with his advancement in rocketry.
Also, Bob Gilruth isn't even mentioned in the article. Neither is Chris Kraft or any other prominent figure in the Space Race. Oyo321 05:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bob Gilruth

message: On this article we're saying the following:
"Other astronauts died in related missions, including four Americans who died in crashes of T-38 aircraft. Russian Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, met a similar death when he crashed in a MiG-15 fighter in 1968."
On Yuri Gugarin's page it's being reported as space capsule that crash landed. Most other documentaries, news articles point to it being a return capsule from space crash landing. Can anyone confirm what it should be? MrBobla 21:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every reputable history I've seen states it was a crash of a routine flight. Details vary - what the aircraft was, what he was doing in it, whether he was drunk or not - but I've never seen a serious claim it was a returning spaceflight, and there is absolutely no way something like that wouldn't have been discovered by a historian since the fall of the USSR. (Lots of bizzare stories used to circulate... but most of them have stopped since 1990) Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that page states "On March 27, 1968 he and his instructor died in a MiG-15UTI on a routine training flight near Kirzhach." - there's nothing about a "returning flight", unless it mentions somewhere he was on the return leg of his training flight, nothing that particularly contradicts this page. Shimgray | talk | 19:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gagarin died while attempting to pass the sound barrier. He was on a trainer jet with one more crewman, and his plane crashed into a mountain in the USSR. Yes, my description is extremely vague, but I am 100% confident Gagarin died attempting a sonic boom. 
Witnesses reported a loud boom (presumably the sonic boom) and another boom, which was the sound of his plane crashing. Oyo321 02:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How did Yuri Gugarin really die??

message: The image seemed to be broken, so I uploaded a new one from a NASA website (so it's public domain).
I'm pretty sure I added it correctly, but could somebody double-check my work?  Sorry, I'm kind of new to this.
Darthmarth37 07:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Sputnik I Graphic 

message: I'm curious about the extended length of some of the footnotes. Is this an intentional style choice? It seems a bit archaic in a hypertext environment. If there's already a sub-article, e.g. Sputnik crisis, why not put the relevant material there, rather than in a footnote to Space Race? And if there isn't yet a sub-article ... start one! Sdsds 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes section - style question 

message: "In June 1997 the Air Force announced it would be giving away the last of its chimps through a public divestiture authorized by Congress. Two months after their transfer to the Coulston Foundation, a New Mexico research laboratory, the Save the Chimps Foundation filed suit to remove them. This action eventually allowed their "release" to semi-wild conditions in 1999 in a South Florida sanctuary."
I removed the section above from the Animals in space section since it had multiple requests for citations, the divestiture of the chimps is only barely tangentally connected to animals in space (unlike, for example, the actual flight of those chimps into space), by the year 1997 the Space Race was over for 20 years, and serious questions on POV. --Don Sowell 22:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals in space