Talk:Timeline of the Space Race

message: I suspect Talk:List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969 has more page watchers, so discussion can take place there. Marskell 12:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: If it's all inclusive...
Where have you guys been all your life ?  ;-p
"On that glorious day in May, 1963, Gordo Cooper went higher, farther, and faster than any other American... ...And for a brief moment, Gordo Cooper became the greatest pilot anyone had ever seen."
The Right Stuff ~02:27:30
May 15 - 	L. Gordon Cooper spends 34 hours in space. He is the last American to fly in space alone.
http://www.thespacerace.com/timeline/
Cooper was launched into space on May 15, 1963, aboard the Mercury-Atlas 9 (Faith 7) spacecraft, the last Mercury mission. He orbited the Earth 22 times and logged more time in space than all five previous Mercury astronauts combined—34 hours, 19 minutes and 49 seconds—traveling 546,167 miles (878,971 km) at 17,547 mph (28,239 km/h), pulling a maximum of 7.6 g (74.48 m/s²). Cooper achieved an altitude of 165.9 statute miles (267 km) at apogee. He was the first American astronaut to sleep not only in orbit but on the launch pad during a countdown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper#Mercury_Seven
Netweezurd (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  All inclusive or following somebody's idea of what's is worth it or not ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of the Space Race. 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/20080723213816/http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/books/library_gainor_020125.html to http://www.space.com/spacelibrary/books/library_gainor_020125.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) 10:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Not to be an asshole, but what's the point of including these things? If we go that route, there's no reason to not include "first Pole in space" (to screw with polandball if for no other reason). Or is there something inherently important about being American while doing space things? Commissar of His Imperial Majesty, Metropolitan of the Politbureau CK CPSU, Serene Prince of the Council of People's Commissars - idio3. (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's arguable if the space race ended in '69. The USSR put up the first space station, and also more relevantly to Feb. 2021, transmitted the first sound from another planet in 1981, forty years before the much hyped sound from Mars. -2A01:4C8:1448:F6A6:1:1:2734:D308 (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First American/British/etc in (...) 

message: I see several entries that don't make a lot of sense here. We also have an article on Timeline of space exploration, where they make more sense.
For example, there are columns for the US and the Soviet Union because the space race was between them (which is also why the list stops at 1991). Afaik the UK, France and Canada did not take part in the space race.
Also, since it is about the space race, only achievements should be listed, not accidents. Same goes for failed missions. Unless, of course, something was achieved at the same time (eg a first hard landing when a soft landing was intended (just an example, I don't know if that actually happened)).
And there should be only firsts in the list, not seconds, such as the first US ICBM, which was really the second ICBM.
And there are several entries for setting a new 'x day human-crewed space record'. 1 day, 5 days, 8 days, 14 days, 23 days, 28 days, 56 days, 84 days ... and it isn't even complete yet, see Timeline of longest spaceflights. Adding all those in would make it all very muddled, so I suggest dropping it altogether. Except maybe the highest record until 1991 (which isn't even in the list). And very maybe the first whole day (Gagarin basically made a short hop into space).
Speaking of crews, there is a huge technical difference between a robotic craft and a manned craft. But how big is the difference between one person or more? Which raises the question how big the difference is between a chimp and a human. Oops, that would mean dropping Gagarin, and of course we can't have that. :) A big part of the space race was popular perception, and in that sense this was a major one.
And that leads me to the general question of what the criteria should be. In very general terms technical achievement (getting ahead of the other) and popular perception (national pride). I suppose those two were mainly what the space race was about. But also scientific discovery? That might make the list overly long. But also, that's part of space exploration, not the space race, right? DirkvdM (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be some benefit in the first US ICBM, the second one.  The argument has been made that the US was too far behind in achievements to have won the space race (to land men the Moon).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't follow. Which US ICBM do you mean, the first or second (you mention both)? And what benefit? For the article (leaving it in there) or for the US? DirkvdM (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   Entries that don't belong in this list 

message: Currently the entry on the list for May 5, 1961 states:
"First pilot-controlled space flight (Alan Shepard). First human space mission that landed with pilot still in spacecraft and thus the first complete human spaceflight by FAI definitions"
That last sentence was clearly added to make "a point" about the first spaceflight not being accomplished by Yuri Gagarin and giving some merit to the US. This sentence should be removed since it only has a blog as a reference, which does not include a single source to back its claims about that statement, and goes to speculate on this matter on the grounds of irrelevant pedantisms. You can even read in the FAI webpage that "Gagarin’s flight led to the foundation of the FAI Astronautic Records Commission (ICARE) under which his records were ratified." This in means Gagarin's flight was the actual standard for giving these credentials, It makes no sense to point out that Gagarin was not performing an actual spaceflight when in fact it orbited the Earth and inspired the criteria of the FAI. To discredit this outstanding archivement because of american blind nationalism is just stupid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.194.197 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical reviosionism from the US? 

message: If a mission achieves more than one thing, should those be grouped together in one row, or should each achievement get its own separate row. At the momennt, both are used, which is inconsistent. I suggest doing the latter, since the race was about the achievements. DirkvdM (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   Row per mission or row per achievement? 

message: In the US-column, the organisation is often mentioned (though not consistently). Is that relevant? The space race was between the countries, not organisations. Also, there are lots of details that could be included, but this is meant to be an overview. Details can be looked up using te links to the missions. DirkvdM (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the organisations be mentioned? 

message: I added some more photos. There was blank space to the right anyway, so why not? (And in the process I discovered that the first photo from the surface of Venus wasn't mentioned yet, one of the highlights in technical achievements, I'd say. I Anyway, corrected that.)
Of course, here the selection criteria have to be very strict, since there's room for only about 10, unless they go into a photo gallery at the bottom (which might also be a good idea).
And there also has to be an appropriate photo. Alas I couldn't find one of Gagarin in a space suit, but of course he had to be in there. DirkvdM (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: At the moment, there are two columns for the name of the mission, to indicate from which country the mission is. But those are two different things. The name of the mission is just some added info, and it adds links for further information. So it makes sense to put that in the last column. But the article is about the race, so the country is of primary interrest. So I suggest putting that at the front, in a column with flags. Or maybe as a second column, after the date.
The missions can then be put in one column instead of two, making the list much more compact, thus avoiding many line breaks. DirkvdM (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. The current approach is not great, but it does accomplish two important things: keeping flag use to a minimum and giving a clear overview of USSR vs. USA at a glance. TompaDompa (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, part of my thinking was actually that the use of flags gives a better overview, at a glance, than looking per item at in which column the name of the mission is placed. Also, this is about nationalism, so 'flag waving' makes a lot of sense. :) DirkvdM (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missions in one unified column and a separate flag-column 

message: Ever since I placed the photograph of the first Space Shuttle, that hasn't sat well with me. It was the first Space Shuttle, but not the first spaceplane, which was X-15 Flight 90. So the Space Shuttle was just another version of spaceplane. And the X-15 was manned and actually made it into space, albeit only just (106 km altitude).
So the Space Shuttle was in no way a first in the sense of this article. However, it is a rather important event in the public perception. So how to deal with this? DirkvdM (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I may have found a solution. The flight of X-15 was suborbital, while the Space Shuttle's was orbital. And that is also what the entry reads, it was the first spaceplane in orbit. Is the difference between sub-orbital and orbital big enough? But if sub-orbital is relatively unimportant, should the X-15 then be dropped from the list? I'd rather do that than drop the Space Shuttle. DirkvdM (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Shuttle - not a first? 

message: A while ago, I noticed the first (and so far only one of two) photograph of the surface of Venus was not in the list. And now I noticed that the first flyby of Saturn by Voyager 1 was not in the list (so I added that too). These are two of the three most imporant missions, in my view (the third being the first photograph of the far side of the Moon).
And this while there are lots of smaller events in the list. It really needs a thorough revision, it seems to me. I'll see how far I get by reading other articles. DirkvdM (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper way to decide what to include is to look at what WP:Reliable sources about the Space Race include. Wikipedia editors shouldn't be making those decisions. The question to ask for each entry is: do WP:Reliable sources consider this an important milestone in the Space Race? TompaDompa (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But what specifically would those criteria be then? I don't see anything specifically about this in that page. Of course, we could just decide on a set of criteria here (basically stating what the article is about - of course that is something we can decide ourselves) and then mention those criteria in the header. I'd say they have to be firsts and either be important in public opinion (after all that is what the race was about) or be major technical achievements (getting ahead of the other party). DirkvdM (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

text:  I think that the first landing on Venus is more important than the first photograph from its surface.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, a photograph speaks more to the imagination than the mere fact that a craft has landed. And the first photograph was a major technical achievement given the technical difficulties (very hostile environment in which equipment doesn't survive easily). The fact that only 2 photographs have ever been taken illustrates the problem. The surface is principally invisible without descending to the surface. DirkvdM (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many omissions 

message: Mars 1 did a fly-by of Mars, but communications were lost before arrival. So does that count? It did not achieve all intended purposes, but it did do a fly-by.
I come across many such things. For another example, Mars 3 sent the first signals from Mars, but that was a partial photograph. Viking 1 was more succesful in that respect, but not the first. So not worth mentioning? DirkvdM (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Mars 1 mostly achieved its goal, so it should count (at least be listed, with a note that communications were lost before it got there).  I think Mars 3 should count as the first soft landing (more significant than sending the signal).  If Mars 2 was the first to crash on Mars, then that should count.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mars 2 and Mars 3 are already there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial succes 

message: There already was a template (or what is that called?) about references at the top, and now a second one is added, which I assume is basically about that too. But each entry has a link to the article that states that information. Of course Wikipedia itself can never be stated as a source (that would be circular), but it can be used as a source, assuming that article has an external source. If not, that should be fixed.
Of course, the references in those articles can simply be copied to here (maybe in a separate (very narrow) column at the end). But that would be a whole lot of work. DirkvdM (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeline of Solar System exploration is much more extensive (not limited to the space race), and has a lot of references. So simply do a copy of that refs-column for the missions that feature in this list? Well, no, at least if the rows are to be separated into the separate achievements, as I suggested before. Both tasks involve a lot of work (all the dates have to be checked as well), but could be done at the same time. DirkvdM (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: This was achieved by Venera 13. But is that important enough? A photograph speaks to the public imagination, but sound recordings don't. And as for the technical achievement, a camera is much more vulnerable, and it has to be on the outside to take photos. So in all, I don't think it's worthy of the list, but I thought I'd mention it. DirkvdM (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sound recordings from another planet 

message: This was achieved by Surveyor 6. But it was just a short hop, 2.5 m sideways. So not really worth including, I'd say. DirkvdM (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First lift-off from an extraterrestrial body 

message: Mars 2 and Mars 3 had a rover on board, the PrOP-M. Mars 2 crashed and Mars 3 lost communication before the rover could be deployed. So again, not worthy of making it to the list. But this was 26 years before the first operational Mars rover!
Fun fact: these rovers moved on skis! :) Well, the shape of skis, the operation was different. But makes sense, if you hardly know the surface you're moving on you want something something more robust than wheels. But also, they're cute. :)
They also had a form of AI on board, to react to any obstacles they came across. Was that a first? That also depends on what you call AI, I suppose. DirkvdM (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Mars rover 

message: Mars 3 sent the first picture from Mars, but that was shit (pardon my French). So should the first clear picture, by Viking 1, be included in the list? But where do you draw the line? The first picture of Earth from space was also shit (for which reason the photo was removed from the article after I placed it). But that is still in the list. I suppose it's not up to us to judge the quality of the results. DirkvdM (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First clear pictures from Martian surface 

message: There were quite a few animals in space in the early days. I remember the fruit flies being in the article (or was that the predecessor?). Why was that removed (and the rest not listed)?
1947, fruit flies, first animals to survive being in space, not in orbit
1949, Albert II, first mammal and primate in space, not in orbit, died upon impact
1951, the dogs Tsygan and Dezik, first mammals to survive being in space, not in orbit
1957, the dog Laika, first mammal in orbit, died in orbit (already in the article)
1959, monkeys Able and Baker, first primates to survive being in space, not in orbit
1960, the dogs Belka and Strelka, first mammals to survive after having been in orbit (already in the article)
1961, primate Ham, first primate to survive being in space, not in orbit (already in the article, but was not the first primate in space)
Note that there is quite a difference between insects and mammals. But is the difference between mammals and primates so important? Biologically not I suppose, but in public perception perhaps? But also, Ham was trained to perform tasks, so that was an important lesson for consequent human spaceflight (he performed quite well in space). But is that a criterium here? DirkvdM (talk) 12:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First [[animals in space]] 

message: If something was done by a robot first, and then by a human, do both have to be listed? I'd say not, because having a human on board makes the task easier. But if it's the other way around, both do have to be listed.
However, the mere fact that humans are on board makes the mission (not the task) more difficult, because it has to include life support and space for the humans, and the humans have to be returned to Earth, and alive at that, which puts a much heavier burden on the mission. So, for example, the first human in space or on the Moon should be in the list, but not the first human-controlled course corrections. 
But also, humans can see things better than a robot. The first lunar rover was robotic. The first human-driven lunar rover, however, added to the value of the mission. Or is that not relevant? But here too, there was a heavier burden on the mission because the humans had to be able to return alive. DirkvdM (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robotic vs. human-operated