Talk:Joseph A. Walker

message: Here's the second paragraph of this article, with the boldface added by me:
"In 1963 Walker made three flights above 50 miles, thereby qualifying as an astronaut according to the United States definition of the boundary of space.  The latter two, X-15 Flights 90 and 91, also surpassed the Kármán line, the internationally accepted boundary of 100 kilometers (62.14 miles).  Making the latter flights immediately after the completion of the Mercury and Vostok programs, Walker became the first person to fly to space twice.  He was the only X-15 pilot to fly above 100 km during the program, and also became the first space traveler to never fly into orbit."
The first two Mercury flights were suborbital.  If Walker completed his two flights after the completion of the Mercury program, how is he "the first space traveler to never fly into orbit?"  Ormewood (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I interpreted it to mean that he was the first person to make a suborbital flight. It seems like kind of an obscure distinction to me, but feel free to restore the original version. Ormewood (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The first space traveler to never fly into orbit?" 

message: Knowing that Yeager wasn't involved with the XB-70 flyby/photo-op or the investigation (as far as I know), how much weight does his opinion, in 1986, carry that Walker lacked formation flying experience?  How does that hold up to recent books regarding the Valkyrie program and the accident?  — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yeager observation is an authoritative one and the quote is properly cited. More discussion is required, other than two editors, with comments three years apart. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeager's credibility is what you are deriding? Find an alternate opposing view, give it a verifiable citation, and treat it like it is, two opposing observations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, put in a quote or statement that contradicts the original and back it up. The facetious "somehow hit the bomber and caused the accident" sure sounds like pilot error. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: You've obviously mistaken my reasoning, see text that is now placed in a note to the reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeager's opinion 

message: I removed the USAF astronauts category tag from the article. Unlike true USAF astronauts like Pete Knight, Walker was not part of the Air Force when he earned his astronaut wings in the X-15. YLee (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Graham, see the above discussion, regardless of Yeager's personal opinions of other NASA pilots, he made a personal judgement about the incident and while there may be official "whitewashed" commentary as you have given, what Yeager is alluding to is a lack of experience in formation flying with dissimilar types, a very common problem with many otherwise experienced pilots. Note the very real issue of service pilots and problems in aerial refuelling where accidents are often the result. See the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin article for a similar instance of problems in a pilot trying to dock with a slow-flying mother ship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, we are arguing over minutia, the difficulty in formation flying is a very well-known issue. Flying dissimilar aircraft also lends complexity to the situation. Whatever may have happened that day in the flash of a second or two, no one knows, and the accident investigation obviously sheds no light on possible causes. Yeager is an acknowledged aviation expert and expressed an observation, I have tailored a more neutral statement in the form of a note to the reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed USAF astronauts tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joseph A. Walker. 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/20110423074712/http://www.adm.yar.ru/english/section.aspx?section_id=74 to http://www.adm.yar.ru/english/section.aspx?section_id=74
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) 10:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joseph A. Walker. 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/20150117091649/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/waloseph.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/waloseph.htm
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) 10:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: (Final sentence of 'Death')
Suggest this sentence be reviewed. The Tuscaloosa News article (reference 11) states that Col. Cate was relieved of duty for 'approving' the flight. Whilst further on, the article suggests that SECAF Brown wrote to SECDEF McNamara to advise that the approval decision contravened guidelines, it does appear that authorization/approval was granted, albeit not from Washington. To describe the flight as 'unauthorized' suggests that all involved were operating in defiance of their immediate leadership, when this appears not to have been the case.
Another source that describes the flight as 'authorized' is the TAKE OFF partwork published by Aerospace Publishing Ltd: 
'Last Ride of The Valkyrie', TAKE OFF issue 12, 1988, p336, which states:
'Poor General Electric had done nothing wrong. The flight had been properly authorised, the photo session had gone impeccably, and GE was in no way to blame for the actions of the F-104 pilot.'
Suggested alternative sentence:
"Authorization of the formation flight was later found to have been granted in contravention of established Air Force policy, leading to career ending sanctions against serveral officers (refs)."
Or words to that effect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Flight Authorized / Unauthorized