Talk:Apollo–Soyuz/Archive 1

Political background?
Some info on the political background would be nice if somebody has it. 84.58.41.51 21:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Bognor Regis?
Can someone check the Bognor Regis fact. It stinks Wikihoax to me. Grobertson 22:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be true. My God, the things we find out. Grobertson 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't offhand confirm if it is true, but it's certainly plausible - Bognor Regis is (just) south enough to be under the orbital path. Shimgray | talk | 09:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bognor Regis was the intended "handshake flyover point", per NASA and the PAO.

Medallion?
I seem to remember there being some type of medallion that both the Russians and Americans had, and somehow each one seperated into 2 pieces, and the two crews exchanged one half. Can someone verify this, and, if it's true, post an image of it? --hello,gadr e n 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Language barrier
I have read that for the sake of clarity of communication, the American astronauts spoke Russian and the Russian ones spoke English as much as possible. If that is true, I find it a noteworthy fact. Blutfink 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So noted in TV Guide article a week or so before the launch. I think it was partly courtesy and partly to ensure the astronauts and cosmonauts heard each other in their own language, however accented. This was also the first time the Soviets televised a launch, live, but they did not permit western new media at the launch site. GBC 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

On display in California?
I have a picture taken of the Apollo-Soyuz test project on display at the RKK Energiya museum. Is it certain that the command module is really this module? Errabee 02:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just found out the Apollo module in the RKK Energiya museum is a mock-up. But I've also found references that the Apollo command module is at the Kennedy Space Center. Errabee 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Apollo 18?
References to the Apollo as "Apollo 18" were corrected, and a note made as to the inaccuracy of such usage. Per NASA and the official PAO press releases - none of which have been recinded and/or "retconned", as with the "official" Mercury Flight Patches that came out *after* the missions - the flight was listed only as "Apollo", as it represented the entire program and its completion. Some histories list the flight as "Apollo 18" to distinguish the mission from reference to the Apollo program as a whole, but again per NASA the proper reference shorthand should be "ASTP" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.224.83.39 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Officially, you're right: all contemporary NASA info referred to the mission as 'Apollo' or 'Apollo-Soyuz' when the two craft were docked. However, several news sources used the 'Apollo 18' nomiker at the time, and even other government agencies, such as NORAD tracking data. After the mission the term became common, even NASA was using it in listing Apollo hardware by the mid '80s. I don't know about other countries, but several British sources I was reading in the late '70s and early '80s used the term from the start. CFLeon (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Androgynous Peripheral Attach System
Probably worth adding a reference to the Androgynous Peripheral Attach System. 141.150.24.19 (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stamps
Could mention the stamps issued by both sides.... Image:Soyuz-Apollon.JPG etc. -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored edits
I restored edits of mine that Gwen Gale undid. She noted the deletion of "meaningful content," but I did not delete any content other than the unneeded detail on the postage-stamp scandal (which she agreed with, subsequently) and the calculator mention. All other edits tightened up the language (e.g., removing given names after their first mention) or eliminated redundancies (e.g., merging the two mentions of Slayton's medical issues). I reinserted Gale's cleanup tag after restoring my edits.

Gale also mentioned "PoV," which puzzled me because I have no point of view on ASTP whatsoever other than from an interest in space topics in general. Whenever possible I maintained the existing text when making the above edits, and it's possible she thought I was the one who came up with the "personal milestone" wording; I did not.

I would be happy to address any specific concerns regarding my edits. YLee (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, I may have been blinded by the crews' earth tone, height-of-1970s-fashion flight suits. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If "Ylee" is Yeechang Lee, he is a long-respected and reliable source for issues regarding Space History on usenet. Deleting and/or reverting *any* edits he has made - unless on the odd chance that his facts are wrong - is a detriment to the accuracy and usefulness of the article in question. Almost to the point where one could argue vandalism has occurred. Anyone questioning his edits should either contact him directly beforehand, or at least show the minimal courtesy of asking for a source cite before wantonly hacking through his contributions. Thanks!

Creating Criticisms Section, Adding to Legacy Section
Criticisms Section: I would like to see the creation of a new a criticisms section relating to the plans and execution of ASTP. Criticisms could cover political, technical, and economic issues. For instance, I don't have the citations at the moment, but I remember reading about a number of individuals from NASA, particularly space crews, who were dismayed at the choice to use the last Apollo module for what some considered to be nothing more than a public relations stunt, instead of another lunar mission (i.e. Apollo 18). Obviously, if the funding was not there for a return to the moon, then the issue was probably moot - but it is still worth discussing. So too would be considerations about the ending of the Apollo program for budgetary and political reasons, especially in light of the fact that the Shuttle had not yet been completed. From a political perspective, were their individuals in the US or Soviet Union who questioned the joint mission? Other critical issues could also be discussed.

Legacy Section: I would also like to see a few changes to the legacy section. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the naming of a minor planet in honor of ASTP. However, there must be a greater legacy than just that. What was the political legacy of two military and political rivals engaging in a joint mission? How can ASTP be viewed in terms of détente (e.g. the signing of SALT I and talks about SALT II in 1972, the 1975 Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Helsinki Accords...). And of course, what about the technical legacies? What did the US and Soviets learn about docking spacecraft, standardization, shared mission control, etc? Were those lessons applied to future collaboration between the US and Russia? What was the impact of ASTP on the Shuttle program, Sky Lab, or ISS, if any?

Just a few thoughts that could be discussed in further detail... —— Wiki1605 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Apollo program was clearly winding down at the time; it would have been nice to have another moon mission, but I'm not sure the lack of one can be realistically blamed on the this project. (The real problem at the time was the delays in the Shuttle program, so that the shuttle didn't fly until Skylab had already fallen out of the sky -- the Skylab could have been the start of a space station, if the shuttle had been ready on time.)  The legacy was presumably laying the groundwork for post-1990 NASA-Russian space cooperation... AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw Gene Kranz certainly voice criticism in an on-camera documentary interview, but he wanted another Saturn IB mission to the Skylab rather than another lunar mission (which would have been probably impractical and much more expensive to "un-mothball" a Saturn V and LM at that time.) A Skylab 5 mission might have possibly been used to restore its orbit so that it would survive until the Space Shuttle flew (as was originally intended before the Shuttle got delayed.) On the other hand, at some point the Skylab would have aged, (consumables run out, etc.) and could it have been refurbished at some point (or really convertible into a larger station?) All interesting speculation, but unknowns which require verification to avoid OR. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Crews of Apollo–Soyuz Test Project

 * Strongly oppose The merge wouldn't be necessary at all, if User:Soerfm hadn't made a set of radical changes to the article, including splitting these tables out to a new page (without following procedure, BTW) and replacing it with a gramatically incorrect sentence: "The crews that met in space was: ...". This user also made a number of changes breaking the standard style in existence for all the Apollo / Skylab / ASTP mission pages. I believe all of these changes should be reverted. That page should also be deleted. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about that, I got carried away Soerfm (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Portrait of ASTP crews - restoration.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Portrait of ASTP crews - restoration.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 15, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-07-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Apollo Use of Pure Oxygen
Article states "Apollo was pressurized at 5.0 psi using pure oxygen". Is that true? My understanding was that after the 1967 Apollo 1 fire the command module was redesigned to use a mixed gas oxygen / nitrogen atmosphere. Just curious, clarification requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.197.112.68 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh--If you read the Apollo 1 article: the fire problem only existed on the ground before launch, when the spacecraft was pressurized to about 16.7 psi; that much pure O2 caused just about anything to burst into flame, and that's when the O2/N2 mixture was used. By the time it reached orbit, the mixture was replaced with the usual 5.0 psi pure O2, which was used all along since Project Mercury. This was OK since the low O2 pressure reduced the fire hazard to near zero, especially since flammable materials in the cabin had also been severely controlled. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Apollo–Soyuz Test Project. 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/20090725172011/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov:80/kscpao/history/astp/astp.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/astp/astp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Unclear citations of Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Soviet Space Programs, 1971–75
In eight places in the article, there are citations referencing "Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, Soviet Space Programs, 1971–75. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976." I see Vol. I (668 pp.)and Vol. II (221 pp.) on the Internet Archive. It would be helpful if citations referenced specific pages in the report. &mdash;Undomelin (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
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) 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apollo-Soyuz Test Project symbolic painting.jpg