Talk:Space Race/Archive 2

Revamping Content - Returning to an FA-Class Article
After reading this article for the first time, I was pleased at the effort and quality of the article and the pictures that went in. Congratulations must be awarded to those who put the effort into the First half of this article. By the time I had read that much, I was asking myself, "why isn't this a featured article?" But by the time that I got to the section that discussed the Legacy of the space race, I could understand why. Tables discussing the modern numbers of satellites launched by countries that were not part of the original space race, while important to WikiProject Space/Space Exploration, Do not belong on the page discussing the 1950s-Early 1970s Competition between the USA and the USSR. The data tabled is redundant, because a similar table is already on wikipedia under Satellite, which also Links to Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality (Which happens to be a featured article itself). Another section of Irrelevant content is in the Legacy continued by Japan. This is probably one of the largest blocks of text, but once again, I have to ask, should the Plans of the Japanese Space Progam to Launch a Probe to Venus have to do with the 1950s-Early 1970's Space Race Between the USA and USSR? On a brief review of that major body of text, is seems to be translated directly from the JAXA website, with broken links, wrong tenses and generally bad writing that would make my english teacher fail me if I handed it in! This Text needs to be taken from this page and put on the page for JAXA, not to mention needs to be Wikified. If no-one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll be deleting the tables, and putting the text on JAXA onto it's own page. I'm also adding my reccomendations to the to-do list on the top of the talk page I'll be commenting later on, once this has been actioned, on how we can probably add to the article. I want to help get this page back to FA Status.

We need to rewrite the content of this article to be the same as the subject described in it's title. Let's give it a try people! MichaelHenley (Page-Talk-Contribs) 11:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm in the process of shortening it. However, the paragraph of content on JAXA missions to other planets is good content- wise, so I'll paste it in here as a scrap. Anyone interested in starting an article or putting it in other articles can still use the content.

The Japanese Space agency JAXA will be launching the moon probe, SELENE in the near future. SELENE is the most sophisticated lunar exploration mission in the post-Apollo Era. The major objectives of the SELENE mission are the global observation of the Moon to research its origin and evolution. Other scientific data captured will also be used for exploring the possibilities of the future utilization of the Moon. JAXA will also establish the basic technologies for future Moon exploration, such as, lunar polar orbit insertion, 3-axis attitude control and thermal control in lunar orbit. In addition, SELENE will take pictures and movies of the beautiful Earth-rise from the Moon horizon. SELENE is planned to be launched in 2007, using the H2A launch Vehicle. Japan launched the Nozomi (PLANET-B) of the Mars space probe on July 4, 1998. Mars orbital injection is given up on December 9, 2003. It passes through 1000 km points from Mars on December 14. The return to the earth is aimed at. In addition, Japan plans launching of Venus space probe in 2010. PLANET-C is the next planetary exploration project for the Martian orbiter NOZOMI. This project’s main purpose is to elucidate the mysteries of the Venusian atmosphere. Though often referred to as Earth’s sister planet in terms of size and mass, Venus is actually very different. It is veiled in carbon dioxide, with a high temperature and thick sulfuric-acid clouds. Clarification of the causes for this environment will provide us with clues to the understanding of the birth of Earth and of its climate changes. Therefore, Venus is a very important subject for exploration. PLANET-C will usher in a new era of Venusian exploration. The probe vehicle is scheduled to be launched in 2010 and is expected to reach Venus orbit. Furthermore, BepiColombo of the Mercury exploration plan are advanced together Japan and Europe. I launch it in 2013, and it is a plan to cast into orbit of Mercury in 2019. BepiColombo is a Mercury exploration project jointly planned by Japan and the European Space Agency (ESA). The proximity of Mercury to the Sun makes it difficult to observe and hard to reach by space flight. Three passes by NASA’s Mariner 10 in 1974-75 have been the only exploration conducted so far. The mission was inspired by the late Italian astrophysicist Dr. Giuseppe BepiColombo, who suggested that a spacecraft could get close to Mercury several times by using a gravity-assist swing-by of Venus. Hence the name of the project, BepiColombo. Mariner 10 revealed the presence of a magnetic field and magnetospheric activities in Mercury. BepiColombo will conduct comprehensive observations of Mercury’s magnetic field, magnetosphere, and both its surface and interior. That will help determine how much it has in common with other planets and what elements are unique to Mercury as well as the origin and evolution of terrestrial planets. Moreover, in February, 2007, it is H-2A12 By a rocket, I launched Information Gathering SatelliteⅡ. Four systems were set by it, and ability for intelligence rose markedly. Furthermore, Japan participate in International Space Station. JAXA
 * MichaelHenley (Page-Talk-Contribs) 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

USSR vs Soviet Union reverts
Why does the article have to solely use either "USSR" or "Soviet Union"? A mixed usage of equivalent terms usually serves to break up monotony in an article and make for a more attractive writing style. Is there a wikipedia policy against using multiple equivalent terms in an article? If so that policy definately sets wikipedia apart from all other encyclopedias whose authors freely switch between equivalent terms wherever it would seem to serve their stylistic purposes.Zebulin 17:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since that the article has several instances of both terms, the basis of your initial question is false. --Yath 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

nonesense. I want to keep it that way. I was referring to the recent reversions of multiple instances of USSR to Soviet Union and vice versa. Each edit would make the changes entirely in one direction to the detriment of the article. I posted this in hopes heading off any effort to make the article uniform in that sense.Zebulin 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Other countries having the ability for space development
Please do not delete this. This article does not treat only space race of the cold war period. I think that the article of the recent space development is included.--218.110.154.112 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

''The Space Race was a competition of space exploration between the United States and USSR, which lasted roughly from 1957 to 1975. It involved the efforts to explore outer space with artificial satellites, to send humans into space, and to land people on the Moon.''
 * Mate, It does only treat the space race of the cold war period. From the Lead section of the paragraph:

Another Idea would be for you to start another article on the present-day space race that you are referring to. We can then link most of content on the Legacy page onto that page then, as a "Main article:" link.

Not only that, the tables which you continue to place on the article are already present on other pages on wikipedia! Have a look at Satellite, and Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality, which is also a featured article.

Feel free to use the paragraph of JAXA content in the JAXA page, but please do not put it here. The only "space race", (apart from the US-USSR one that is the main body of the article) that is going on at the moment is that which is speculated upon in this article, which also needs to be deleted.

I invite any and all comments on this topic, from both sides of the discussion. Clearly no progress can be made on this article can be made, until this issue has been resolved. Please note that We are on the verge of Violating the 3RR Rule, and if this isn't resolved, this will break this rule.

Can other users please comment on what has been going on here? I feel like I have been the only one able to explain this. P.S. 218.110.154.112, have you considered getting an user account? Kindly, MichaelHenley (Talk-Contribs) 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that "space race" inherently implies competetion. Given that all major space faring countries except China are currently cooperating on the International space station it would seem that any concept of an ongoing space race would need to revolve around competititon between China and the other space faring countries.  Do we have any sources refering to any such contemporary space race?Zebulin 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't the article list the winner?
this article has one major problem. it fails to name a clear winner in the space race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Real life conflicts seldom end with clear cut victories. The concept of winning is more appropriate to games. As such articles on real life conflicts are better served by providing the reader with the information to form their own judgment on the outcome should they choose to frame it in those terms.Zebulin 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Winner in space race? You mean Russia? Why I said Russia? Because USA purchases russian engines (RD-180), pays Russia to launch sattelites, uses russian rockets. Russia currently is the only country that can realistically launch payloads and humans in to space, reliably, without fear of them falling down, crushing or other bad things happening to them. Can USA do that? I don't think so, considering recent circus with Shuttles. And even if russian rocket crushed, within month, it will be launched again, sucesfully. Claiming that USA won space race is not knowing the current situation in space ecploration, where Russia really dominates. Also, shouldn't the article mention that Russia plans to land on Mars? Who said Space race is over? Do you want links and references? I mean, I don't want to edit article, someone else should do it, more appropriately, I am not that good at editing. But Mars programm should definitely be mentioned.99.231.59.7 16:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 7, 2007.
 * Links and references are always welcome!Zebulin 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i will also have to say USSR won the space race. namely when i think "space race" i think "race to space". USSR was the first to send something useful (a communication satelite) and a human to outer space. although USA sent the first man to the moon was of great significance, they would had won the "lunar race". likewise there is currently an unofficial race to mars, and whoever does so first wins the "mars race" not the "space race". thus imo, USSR gets credit for the "space race", USA gets credit for "lunar race" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.193.190 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the article could do with more sources describing this interpretation of the "Space race". In that case it obviously would cover a much smaller period of time.  However, the first weather satellite and the first communication satellite and to date the first publicly acknowledged spy satellite were launched by the US so the definition may require some tweaking to ensure that the USSR is properly credited for winning the race.Zebulin (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe if you want to list the winner (SO FAR), you porobably want to list the fact that supposed winner now depends on supplies of loser's rocket engines to keep one of it's most promising space launcher projects alive. Also, winner was helpless when problems started with ISS and loser had to fix them, and winner was very thankful to loser. Also, from 2015, the winner will COMPLETELY depend on the loser, since the winner apparently can not produce reliable space launchers and vehicles, while loser uses hat it has built in 1960's. We should also mention comparative reliability of loser and winner, namely, that winner's reliability is nowhere near loser's reliability. WE should mention (and this is seriously) how many people died due to malfunctions of each of the programmes. Also, by 2015, loser plans ot land on mars. How could we declare the winner if the race is not over (it will never be over).

And here are references:

1. American Atlas 5 uses RD-180: http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av004/050309atlas5rocket.html 2. russian plans for mars landing: "http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Russian_Dreams_Of_Reaching_Mars_First_999.html", "http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article539874.ece", "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2101861.stm"

Do we need more references?99.231.63.253 (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)PAvel Golikov.
 * Those references would best fit the space exploration and spaceflight articles, unless you're arguing that the "winner" and "loser" are still competing with one another in the space race. If we decide that the space race isn't over and will never be over we might just as well merge this article with spaceflight or space exploration.  Please note the following from the BBC article you offered:


 * ''Leaders of the Russian space programme said the plan needed international co-operation and they hoped to win support from both the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and the European Space Agency (Esa).

''
 * A plan that requires international cooperation including all major space agencies doesn't sound like much of an example of ongoing competition.


 * Zebulin (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing satellite in the timeline
One important satellite, TIROS-1, which was the first successful weather satellite sent up by USA is missing from the timeline. Could somebody please add this? There is a Wikipedia page about it. //Kada 10 september 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.81.202 (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mars landing
Shouldn't the article mention that Russia currently has plans to land on Mars by 2015? After all, this has to do with space race. 99.231.59.7 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Pavel, October 7, 2007.
 * If you like I can add it if you can provide the references. I haven't heard much about Russias manned mars landing plans lately so I do not have references ready to make those edits just yet.Zebulin 07:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

OPERATION RAZORKNIFE
I deleted this:
 * "V2s were even more deadly for the slave laborers forced to produce them&mdash;more died making them at Mittelbau Dora Concentration Camp than were killed with the attacks.

as irrelevant to the article. Anybody who wants can move it to V-2. Trekphiler (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Space race "was"..?
What's this then? --Leladax (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * read the article. It's not about the Space Race.  It's about a possible new "space race" relating to Chinese and US space related technologies.Zebulin (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * neither the chinese nor the american have the budget for a race, they will not change their timetable just to "beat" the opposition. besides, i think NASA's program will fall apart because of funding(US recession) and political reasons. while the chinese is doing an infrastructure makeover in shanghai(kicking the factory out to city center like new york) so there is no factory to produce the new CZ5 moon class rocket, also there is no pad or space center that can lanuch it(they can't get the rocket there! it is too wide and tall for rails or planes); this cause china to decided to build yet another new lanuch center at hainan, to allow the transportation of rockets via the sea(basically mirroring KSC). so i expect delay after delay after delay... it is not so much as a race than a crawl... all these article we see about a race is really those neocon trying to sell the idea of a 'threat' to space superiority without taking account of the physical reality that it really is rocket science and you can't just pull something off without hundreds of billions of dollar which nobody has. unless US(print money) or China(selling US bond) is willing to inflat the US Dollar to fund their race. Akinkhoo (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, neither China nor USA have the resources to spend on a frivilous space race that would have little gain for the winner. That is why there is no real race per se but just 2 nations slowly expanding thier respective space missions. 99.249.228.146 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What about Space Station?
in the history of manned flight, i think space station play a big role in developing the technology and capability. going to the moon is great; but the ability to stay in space of years and really carry out some long duration operations and studies on human endurance in space, is this not important in the race to conquer the space? how could one truely be seen as winning the race without having the ability to "just stay up there"? the salyut, skylab and mir deserve some recognition as being part of the race. what do you think? Akinkhoo (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * they get omitted because after apollo-soyuz there was little overt competition to describe in terms of a "race". The space stations prior to that time didn't really demonstrate the "just stay up there" property you refer to as the longest mission had only been 24 days which is scarcely twice as long as a lunar mission.Zebulin (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening illustration
The Lunokhod 1 picture is ok, but it lacks a certain impact in comparison to the many space race era pictures that might be selected to start the article. The old Titan II launch picture certainly fit the bill in this respect but it was probably removed because it was a US project. Would it be possible to find a suitably dramatic soviet image (or perhaps a soviet/US diptych) and move the Lunokhod picture to a less prominent portion of the article?Zebulin (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Space superpower"
From the article, ''by early 2008. India also has plans for manned space flights in 2014-2015 (that will make it as the fourth space superpower) it would appear that edits which use the term space superpower'' define it as any country that launches a person to space. From where does this idea originate? As it stands it appears to be an original research neologism which should be removed from the article if no source can be found. In particular there doesn't appear to be any reason why manned flight would set the bar for space superpower status and number of successful satellite or space probe launches or total mass launched to orbit or other possible criteria would not.Zebulin (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Space superpower doesn't pass NPOV. Get rid of the term if you see it. I've tried reverting the anon who keeps adding it, but every couple of days it's back. -MBK004 15:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline Graph
I feel that the timeline graph is pretty POV. It states in the description that:

"This image takes significant events from the timeline of the Space Race from 1957 through 1975 and plots them into a y-axis that gauges the relative significance of those accomplishments"

I dont think its good practice, nor the place of wikipedia, to judge one accomplishment against another, let alone quantify them on a graph. For many people, the first man in space could be seen as the most significant, for others the first to land on the moon. I reckon we should remove the graph and replace it with something a little more neutral. How do others feel? Thestealthmonkey (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * one problem is that the image is nearly useless in any suitable resized version in the article and that clicking to view the full sized image associates the uploaders biased commentary with the article. The image itself could be completely neutral if we accept that y axis is properly tracking technical difficulty for each achievement in as far as each achievement could be considered as more challenging than the one below it.  Using the y-axis to track 'significance' on the other hand would be entirely non neutral.  complexity or difficulty might be objectively compared but not significance.  In this case I recommend editing out the uploaders information that is not appropriate for any use of the image in an article.Zebulin (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Let us go to the moon together
It is worth describing in the Lunar landing section, however briefly, John F. Kennedy's proposal for a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. manned lunar expedition. The offer was first communicated directly to Nikita Khrushchev in 1961, and then again in 1963. JFK also had Dean Rusk and his brother, Robert, secretly push for a joint mission. He openly pressed the issue again at the United Nations (video clip). More amazingly, according to Sergei Khrushchev, his farther had decided to accept Kennedy's offer and was preparing to make a statement on the issue. It was a very uncertain time for Project Apollo. Dynablaster (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely this is notable. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Anyone? Dynablaster (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Space Race
the only thing this article is lacking is the structural benefits of being featured to be talked as a more important article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.165.180.252 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. As I read the article it seemed to me more and more like non-English speakers wrote it. It is riddled with small spelling and grammatical errors. I would have fixed them, but I have the gut feeling that this article is hotly contested by some? It also seemed that some things were written from a very subjective view point (look at the shuttle section). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.104.131 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please correct multitude of "non-native-english-isms" in "Recent Events" subsection.
The section has a tag on it, but it is loaded with awkward-isms, many incomprehendable. I'd do it, but yes, I'm too lazy. It's easier to complain anonymously here on the talk page. :-) An alternative is to delete the subsection (or even the whole "Legacy" section) as off-topic.

71.126.239.205 (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) (a currently not-logged-on regular user)

List of firsts
Do we really need to say "US-Air Force", "US-NASA" etc? That information is relevant only to someone who wants to know how various US space efforts were organized. The material fact that is necessary for the table to work is the name of the country. After all, no casual sterotypical reader from the USA is interested in which design bureaus designed the various rockets.

Bottom line: IMO the various "Air Force", "NASA" etc. things need to go. 118.90.6.70 (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I think the info is significant and should stay. I wish the USSR portions of the chart specified which bureaus were responsible for which achievements as well, but that's probably more difficult to discover. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Grammar issues
In reference to an above comment, the grammar in the "Recent Events" subsection is so poor that I believe it will take some time to try to figure out what the original author/editor was trying to say. Nonetheless, the section is in need of significant cleanup.

Alvincura (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)