Jump to content

Talk:Human spaceflight/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Moved discussion of the term

If you look up the article Human spaceflight, it seems likely that you are more interested in the concept of human spaceflight and its history than the term itself. I have thus moved the discussion of the term to the end of the article. Bergsten 14:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The term "manned" does not denote gender. See wiktionary:manned and [1]. The term "human spaceflight" is OK, and is commonly used, as is "manned spaceflight". Made a few minor changes to clarify this. Joema 12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

request for peer review

There is a request for a peer review at List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969. Bubba73 (talk), 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused Sentence.

  • "The only destination of human spaceflight missions beyond Earth orbit has been the Moon, which is itself in Earth orbit." It's the only place humans have gone outside our orbit but it's in our oribt. Yes that makes a ton of sense. Zazaban 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a good point, which the article wording now finesses. It isn't fully correct to say the spaceflights to the Moon went beyond Earth orbit, because the spacecraft hadn't left the Earth's Hill sphere. But the Moon missions did enter the Hill sphere of -- and take up orbit around -- the Moon. From an orbital mechanics perspecitve, the question of leaving Earth orbit is one of escape velocity. If you can work this into the Human spaceflight article, great! Sdsds 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion Suggestion: Irrelevancy

Many people believe the space program to be an irresponsible waste of money, seeing as how so much goes into it and nothing useful comes out of it. This should be reflected in a "controversy" section of the article. Also, the Soviet Union hasn't existed in 16 years.

Yes, the article would benefit from a discussion of relevancy and motivation. Why exactly do we have human spaceflight programs? Especially when robotic programs have had so much success doing research science? Questions of motivation for national programs verge upon politics, though, which is always a difficult area to cover with a WP:NPOV. Sdsds 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

``What is the value to the United States of being engaged in projects where we are doing the kinds of things that other nations want to do, and including them as partners? I would submit that the highest possible form of national security, well above having better guns and bombs than everyone else, well above “speaking softly and carrying a big stick” as President Roosevelt suggested, is the security which comes from being a nation which does the kinds of things that make other countries want to join with us to do them. If this is not “strategic”, then what is?`` -- Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 12 April 2007.

From http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/174145main_mg_space_symposium_20070412.pdf Sdsds 06:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a bulletin board for political discussions, not even those disguised as being articles "about the controversy".Ordinary Person 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Smith Dry Lake

The article seems to assert X-15 flights were launched from Smith Dry Lake. This is misleading -- the X-15 was released from the B-52 captive carry mother ship while they were over Smith Dry Lake; the X-15 wasn't launched from there. Presumably it (under the B-52's wing) launched from Edwards AFB. Does anyone have a source for that? (sdsds - talk) 02:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The X-15 flights all took off from Edwards. I've updated the article to reflect that, and added a citiation since the X-15 article doesn't include it. (sdsds - talk) 07:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe

Resolved
 – Concensus is no humans launched from Europe. (sdsds - talk) 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First European who was launched in space was Yuri Gagarin, but he was launched from Asia. There was no person to be launched in space directly from Europe up to date as I know. Is it correct?--Dojarca 21:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right: California, Florida, and Kazakstan are the only places from which human spaceflights have launched. (sdsds - talk) 02:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also a place in China, though also in Asia.--Dojarca 11:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point! From Jiuquan in China. But none from Europe. (sdsds - talk) 05:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mir

Resolved
 – Mir is now in the list. (sdsds - talk) 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At present, the article includes the ISS in the list headed "Currently the following spacecraft and spaceports are used for human spaceflight", but does not include Mir in the list headed "Historically, the following spacecraft and spaceports have also been used for human spaceflight". If the ISS is a spacecraft used for human spaceflight, then surely Mir was. Ordinary Person 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently launching human spaceflights

I'm concerned about the phrasing in this revision, which says, "the Space Shuttle program and the Soyuz programme are currently launching human spaceflights". This could be easily misconstrued to mean "these two programmes have vehicles on the pad right now, ready to go" which isn't (at this moment) the case for either of them. The phrasing, "the Space Shuttle program and the Soyuz programme are both frequently launching human spaceflights" might be a bit more awkward, but it cannot be misconstrued to mean "the launches are happening right now". Is there some phrasing that gets the benefits of both? (sdsds - talk) 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That bothered me too. What do you think about the new wording I've created? — Swpbtalk.edits 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This current wording makes a lot of sense: "actively launching" is clearly the better way to phrase it. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 15:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

National spacefaring attempts

I have deleted the whole "notes" section at the end of National spacefaring attempts. These contained claims about a an alleged Nazi Germany human spaceflight, which are unsupported. The citations all point to dubious web sources which I was not able to corroborate. The second paragraph on an intended Iraqi project was equally unsupported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschu (talk • contribs) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Can we get a Yuri Gagarin picture in this article? Preferrably in space, if one is available. Rndm757633 (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully "human spaceflight" joshstrikes a balance between being gender-neutral and still sounding elegant enough. Rlandmann 23:37, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

As an article name it is fine, but the bad thing is that it don't fit into a sentence, like e.g. Soyuz TM-2 was a humaned spaceflight, so it always needs a redirect. andy 08:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To make it even more gender-aware, I'd like to see the "first human in space" supplemented with the first woman, and first black. We minimize the struggles they had to go through to get there if we do not mention them. I know we're being "PC" to call Yuri Gagarin the first "human" in space, but the bald fact is that he was a man and women couldn't go to space then, and we should unfortunately acknowledge that. I don't know the actual names and dates myself, or I'd've been bold. --zandperl 03:24, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First Woman, Valentina Tereshkova (Vostok 5, june 16, 1963), the four others selected for the Female Cosmonaut Corps did not fly; the second one was also a USSR citizen, Svetlana Savitskaya (flew the Soyuz T-7 in 1982, was part of the crew of Salyut 7 in 1984, where she became the first woman in EVA)

--

How about "inhabited spacecraft" for those that contain people, and "uninhabited spacecraft" for those that don't? This looks forward to the (distant?) future when today's puny space station might be replaced by sizable permanent residences in space.

--

I changed the list of countries that has performed spacetravel to: soviet, usa, instead of usa, soviet, of the following reasons:

The order should be either historical or alphabetical - in both cases soviet comes before usa. The old ordering (usa, soviet, etc) is biased IMO.

sorry, but "human spaceflight" is an absolute nonsense term. The flight isn't human, the passengers are. The term is "manned spaceflight", and no, that's already gender-neutral, see mannaz. what's wrong with you people? go find some actual discrimination instead of butchering the English language. 213.3.64.145 18:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may be equally rude for a moment, go find something productive to do rather than butchering the article on some anti-PC crusade. The English language is an living, evolving language. Deal with it. --Robert Merkel 00:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The world used in aerospace industry is human spaceflight, so title of the article seems ok for me.Hektor 18:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Unreliable Source

I have removed information from this article drawn from or sourced from the paper "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu. This source is unreliable, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history. Dialectric (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Results of Soviet "loss" of space race

I've reverted an earlier edit that removed the {{fact}} tag from the sentence in the History section that asserts the Soviets ended their lunar efforts because they "lost" the space race. N.B. I believe this claim accurately described what happened and why (to the extent anyone can understand what a government does ;-), but it really needs to be supported by a citation. I think the best chance at that might be to find supporting material in Challenge To Apollo The Soviet Union and The Space Race, 1945-1974 by Siddiqi, which is available on-line (hurray!) at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=SP-2000-4408. (sdsds - talk) 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a quote: "Glushko's first act as General Designer of NPO Energiya, signed on June 24, 1974, was to suspend all work on the N1-L3 program. The suspension of work on the N1 meant that all programs associated with its development were also terminated. These included the L3M advanced lunar landing missions." Siddiqi, p. 832. 1974. Yet they "lost the space race" in 1969. Editors who support the "lost space race" theory need to explain those 5 years in between, when the Soviets were still actively working on hardware for piloted lunar missions. (sdsds - talk) 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Soviets never publically expressed their intention to land on the Moon. They probably failed to lend there before Americans, but they explored it with robots. I belive they would not construct robots if all the efforts were sent to the human landing. And when Americans did so, Soviets switched to long-term space stations with an aim to make a voyage to Mars.--Dojarca 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

first of all the soviets did not land a human being on the moon. it may also be true that they never said they were going to do so. but like you said they then immediatly switched to Space Station development. and for a long time they were leaders in that. they had the first ones yet more acomplishments to a long list of feats the russians did. SkyLab was the USA's first space station it was more successful then the russians but only based on the Mass of the craft. and for how long the craft was occupied. but eventually the Mir space station came about. but while the Soviets were making big feats in orbital enginering the USA continued more feets on exsploration. the soviets had the first unmaned soft landing of the moon in 1966 but it was in 1976 that the first soft landing of mars came about. then in the folowing years of the late 1970's the voyager probes were launched so far the USA is the only space faring nation to have gone to saturn or beyond. so it was a trade off either build space stations or be the first to send probes beyond the asteroid belt. 99.51.212.6 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Section

The last two paragraphs of the introduction seem to deal with very specific and recent aspects of the US human spaceflight program. They might be better off on a NASA-specific page. Sahrendt (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and in addition almost none of it is discussed in the rest of the article anyway. The lead should mostly be a summary. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Phantom flights

Why does Challenger have two recorded flights in the table AFTER it was destroyed? Doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoop whoop pull up (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a lot more than that wrong with the table, like only three Skylab missions displayed but there are actually four links if you hover over. I've found this with similar images, unfortunately they always have problems when there's too much detail which tends to overlap, it's not really what it was designed for. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
And is that why it shows only 2 of SpaceShipOne's 3 spaceflights? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes all three are in the template's code, Template:Human_Spaceflight_Timeline. Click the edit tab on that page. The examples I saw used to demonstrate this type of image used paintings and the links distinguished objects/people in them. In overly-complex tables like this one there's a tendency to overlap and distort. Same with the mini-solar system diagrams you see on some pages, the links to moons become hidden behind the planets, found that one out already! ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversy in manned missions

Is there no question of the risks of manned spaceflight, the cost, or the value gained from such missions at all? Seems the article is ignoring some of the realities of any manned space program, particularly in today's age. The cold war is over and there is no need to show off who has the biggest rockets.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's covered briefly here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Space_exploration#Rationales --Triskele Jim (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sentence in the Introduction

"The period between the retirement of the Shuttle and the initial operational capability of new systems (either Constellation or the new commercial proposals), similar to the gap between the cancellation of Apollo and the first Space Shuttle flight, is often referred to as the human spaceflight gap." If only Americans are humans, then it is certainly a "human spaceflight gap." Otherwise, I'd suggest to remove this sentence as too America-centrist. Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.168.83 (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Timeline image

The clicktarget for Douglas Wheelock overlapps the (red) cosmonaut to the right – the cosmonaut in turn has no clicktarget in my browser.

Really cool image, but I would suggest a few improvements:

1. For some of the recent ISS expeditions, the overlay between the click target and the colored bar seems to be wrong. (see illustration)

The click target for US astronauts like Wheelock/Walker continues to the right over red bars (for Soviet/Russian), while the click target for Russian cosmonauts like Korniyenko overlays a blue bar (for US).

I have only checked the recent ones there may be more wrong.

I checked with Firefox/Safari, (both on OSX) – YMMV.

2. Tiangong-1 is missing from the timeline image.

3. Can we display expeditions instead of individual astronauts in the timeline image? I think this would result in a better overview with less clutter. --Tony Mach (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Crewed spaceflight

I think there should be some mention of the term crewed spaceflight, which is used on nasa.gov, among other places.—Jchthys 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ageed. We could say what a stupid way it is of describing manned spaceflight, since to the listener it sounds just like crude spaceflight. 141.6.11.19 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ecuador and Romania

I am just curious. Should Ecuador be in this page? The country has no spaceport of its own, and would have to send people into space via another nation (like Russia or the US). — NuclearVacuum 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a suborbital space flight, so we do not need a spaceport.--Stay by me (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh? I didn't realize it was a sub-orbital mission. — NuclearVacuum 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a problem with Romania too. I was thinking the section about "national spacefaring attempts" is about people, not about spaceports. We have an astronaut, he deserves to be in that list. Peace is a lie... (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)DanSlotea

You are correct, this article is not about spaceports, but it is not about every single astronaut that has been in space. If you take a look at the "astronaut" article, you will see that almost every single nation has sent their own people into space. But besides Russia, America, and China, all the other nations were launched into space with the help of Russia and or America (and China to a lesser extent). Dumitru Prunariu was not only launched into space from a Soviet spaceport, but also flew in a Soviet capsule and was also under the command of a Soviet cosmonaut. But Prunariu was not the only to be flown into space in this program, Vladimír Remek flew for Czechoslovakia, Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez flew for Cuba, and Abdul Ahad Mohmand flew for Afghanistan. But these three and all in the other Intercosmos cosmonauts were all from other countries, but were aided by the USSR. If what you are saying is true, every single nation that had an astronaut and cosmonaut should be listed in this list. This section is not for that, if you want to see the article for all the people to go into space, go here. This section is for the human spaceflight programs that were done by a nation and or organization of nations. — NuclearVacuum 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article about Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency says: "...renting the exclusive use of suborbital commercial space ships ...". So it is not developing its own, independent, launch capability at this point. For this reason Ecuador should not be mentioned in the list, in my opinion Grioghair (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood, The EXA rent to own suborbital spacecraft Ecuadorian academic institutions to make scientific experiments.--Stay by me (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The table is about manned national spacefaring attempts. The article about spacefaring defines spacefaring as '...capable of building and launching vehicles into space.' Ecuador is not building vehicles, but renting. So, it is not supposed to be in the list. Grioghair (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but The Ecuadorian Air Force will build a suborbital spaceship with the advice of Roskosmos and Space Adventures.--Stay by me (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. If this is so, Ecuador can be added to the list in my opinion. But use the date when this future spaceship is expected to be finished and launched, or TBA ('to be anounced') if there is no date given. Grioghair (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Ronnie Nader said that will has to suborbital spaceflight (which has the same design) in the second half of 2009, So there is a margin of six months.--Stay by me (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is very unlikely to plan, construct, test and launch a plane in 6 months, let alone a suborbital plane. Or construction must already be well under way. Which existing orbitial plane is it based upon? Is their any (english) source for this information? Grioghair (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The planning and construction of this ship began in 2007.--Stay by me (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it. Earlier u said the Ecuadorian Air Force will build a suborbital spaceship (future tense), and now you say construction already began in 2007 (past tense). I am confused. Grioghair (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I do not know the English and use the Google

translator.--Stay by me (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you find someone who does speak English and Spanish well? You clearly don't understand my objections well enough, and just revert the edits back. Please find someone who can explain and translate quotations from your source. I am still not convinced that 2009 must be the date that your country will have its own manned space program, at least not in the way this article is about. A lot of other countries also not mentioned in the list do also have programs in where they send astronauts into space to do experiments onboard american or russian vehicles. I don't see a difference here with what Ecuador is trying to achieve in 2009-2011. Grioghair (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
In differency with case of Romania, when light suborbital airballoon-launched manned capsule developes in country, planned Equadorian suborbital manned mission ESAA-01 is not based on indigenous technology. It will be one of the first payed missions abord on foreign airplane-launched spacecraft Explorer that now is under development by Russian NPOM-Almaz company according to order of British-US commercial space touristic company Space Adventures. 89.232.105.1 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Currently, the Ecuadorian Civil Agency (a NGO) space travel plan seems to be only a PowerPoint presentation for foundrising. Non encyclopedical relevance, and no reliable sources. --Sageo (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbering of Soyuz missions

@SaltySeas:

intention doesn't mean anything; we are talking about what actually happened, not what was intended. By your logic, we shouldn't count Magellan's voyage as a circumnavigation because he did not "intend" to do so.

Disagree for two reasons:

  • No proof "we are talking about what actually happened, not what was intended." Again, you're being totally arbitrary (I'm tempted to say pedantic, in the sense of "excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy and precision"). And by the same logic, STS-51L (Challenger disaster) was also a "suborbital flight". It is included in the total 135 Space Shuttle missions, all of which were intended to go into orbit.
  • Your Magellan counterexample is really nonsensical, because it runs in the opposite sense. Magellan achieved more than his intent, therefore we credit him with the first circumnavigation and his intent is irrelevant. The aborted flights achieved less than they intended; they weren't at all like the suborbital Mercury, X-15, or SpaceShipOne flights, which didn't have the capability to be anything other than suborbital. It just isn't a valid comparison.

Also, the Russian Soyuz program numbering is fundamentally different than the American Apollo. The Apollo lunar program was terminated when the ASTP flew, so that American flight was not "Apollo 18", but was uniquely identified as ASTP. The Russians numbered their flight Soyuz 19, which they undoubtedly would have flown anyway in the absence of ASTP since their Soyuz program remained active. Notice the ASTP entry only gives one entry for the American craft. Changing the numbering scheme just makes it more confusing, and contradicts the total given in List of Russian manned space missions, which currently stands at 128. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


@JustinTime55:

Gotcha. When you put it that way, I get what you're trying to say. No further disagreement.SaltySeas (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Does Apollo 1 belong in the "Fatality risk" section?

(Note: For the benefit of third parties: this is the diff in dispute.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@SaltySeas: I disagree with your removal of Apollo 1 from this section, for both reasons stated in your edit description.

  • "The point of this section is to list deaths during actual spaceflight missions as stated in the description, not rehearsals for missions". You are the one which changed the description to say "actual spaceflight missions". I disagree; the point of this section is to demonstrate the fatality risk of spaceflight. The incident in which the astronauts died was not just a "rehearsal", but a "plugs-out" test; their mission was to get this brand-new spacecraft flying and prove it could successfully carry men in space. Given the state of the art at that time, for all practical purposes the mission could be considered to have started with their training and preparation for the flight, not just on launch day. That was certainly how this was perceived at the time; it shocked everyone because prior to this, most of the risk had been perceived to be in space and not on the ground. George Mueller decided in April 1967 that the mission would be officially recorded as Apollo 1, "first manned Apollo Saturn flight - failed on ground test".[1] Nothing like it had happened before, or has happened since. The loss of the Apollo 1 crew was every bit as publicly traumatic as the loss of the Soyuz 1 pilot and the Challenger crew in flight. This article is not the List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents, so there is no good reason for excluding it on the technicality that "it didn't happen in flight." Also, it was not a "rehearsal"; what NASA called the usual countdown demonstration test was planned to happen a bit later, after a successful plugs-out test.
  • "If Apollo 1 is included, every other fatal rehearsal should be here as well." Okay, so what? Why is that a problem? To my knowledge, no other "fatal rehearsal" like this has happened. (If I am wrong, how many have there been?) If any more happen, they are certainly appropriate to this section, and can be added. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ertel, Ivan D.; Newkirk, Roland W.; et al. (1969–1978). "Part 1 (H): Preparation for Flight, the Accident, and Investigation: March 16 through April 5, 1967". The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology. Vol. IV. Washington, D.C.: NASA. LCCN 69060008. OCLC 23818. NASA SP-4009. Retrieved March 3, 2011.
@JustinTime55: Hi, before I reply to your comment, I'd first like to say that I noticed all the stuff you've done with this page and I think for the most part it's fantastic. You really improved the quality of every section. That being said, I see what you're saying about this, but I disagree for two reasons. First, I did not change the description; I simply reverted it to what it was before you changed it when you added Apollo 1. Before you did that, the point of the section as stated was to list deaths during spaceflight missions. Second, you bring up my comment about every other fatal rehearsal. You are right in saying that that's not a problem in and of itself, but for a list like this the line must be drawn somewhere. As the previous description of the list stated, actual spaceflight missions were to be included, with another link taking users to non-spaceflight deaths related to spaceflight. Apollo 1 was, at the time of the accident, nowhere near ready to actually fly, so -- in my opinion, based on the evidence I've seen -- should not go here. If you go to that list (List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents) you'll find many more examples that, according to your criteria ("failures of spacecraft systems") could belong in this list as well. For example, should the deaths of Valentin Bondarenko or Michael Alsbury go here, since they died while preparing for spaceflight? The only difference here is that "for all intents and purposes" as you say, Apollo 1 COULD -- not did, could -- be considered to have already begun, while their missions did not have names yet.
Anyway, sorry if that comes off as a little too blunt or direct. If it does, I'm not trying to be mean, I promise! On a related note, I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions on this, so if you see this please reply with your own take!
Also, sorry, one more thing. It appears that that list I was talking about has a similar criteria to the one on this page: "As of 2014, in-flight accidents have killed 18 astronauts, in four separate incidents." So it appears the original list was, for brevity's sake, only talking about in-flight fatalities; Apollo 1 had not yet taken off, so that's probably why it wasn't included.
SaltySeas (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Salty. I'm happy to see you gave this as much thought as I did. However, that being said, I still don't agree with you that the list given here in this article should be limited to incidents only in flight. That seems totally arbitrary, when the title of this section is "Fatality risk", meaning that the purpose is to list incidents of fatalities caused by spacecraft intended for flight. (I accept that the same is not true of the List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents article, where the consensus is for the lists to be split along technical lines of where and how they occurred.) Again, unlike the astronauts killed in jet trainers, these deaths at the time hit the nation every bit as hard as the later Challenger and Columbia accidents, and to exclude them seems a disservice.
Response to some specific points:
  • The Bondarenko death definitely does not qualify, because he was not preparing for spaceflight, despite the fact he was a cosmonaut trainee. He was conducting a medical research experiment on human indurance in a high-oxygen environment.
  • Including Michael Alsbury is a coin toss, because he was the first one to be killed flight-testing a craft intended for later spaceflight (and similarly the X-15 pilot Michael J. Adams). (This hasn't happened before, because pre-flight tests of new spacecraft heretofore have been conducted unmanned. And we're stretching the definition to consider the X-15 a "spacecraft" rather than what it was called at the time: a high-altitude research aircraft.)
  • What other "failures of spacecraft systems" are you talking about? Training deaths in aircraft and simulators clearly do not count, as do not the non-astronaut fatalities.
  • I disagree with your assessment that Apollo 1 was nowhere near ready to fly. That was certainly true when the spacecraft was first delivered to KSC in August 1966, but most all specification defects had finally been fixed by the time of the accident, and it had "flown" simulated in the altitude chamber for over six hours. The only remaining problems were a leaky radiator and ratty communications. NASA believed in good faith by this time there was at least an even chance of launching in February 1967 (had the wires not been scuffed, causing the fire, and the test been successfully completed). In 20-20 hindsight it obviously was not safe to fly, but that's something else entirely. Again, how close it was is not really grounds for excluding it.
You and I seem to be the only ones who care, so there is no consensus. I'm thinking the next step is maybe WP:Third opinion? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined) because 3O requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. With only one posting here by SaltySeas, this cannot be considered to be "thorough." You both seem to get along pretty well, so discuss the reasons you agree or disagree with what the other editor says. (And, Salty, it would appear that the ball is in your court since Justin's posting today.) If you want more editors involved to form consensus, the best way to do that is through request for comment since Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus and are not tiebreakers. If you need a moderator to keep your conversation on track — and it doesn't seem to me that you do, but if you do — then you can use DRN or MEDCOM, but you need to at least make a thorough effort to work it out here first since those forums, like 3O, also require extensive talk page discussion. Good luck to both of you and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

@JustinTime55:@TransporterMan: Hi guys. JustinTime55 says believes my actions to be totally arbitrary, but to be fair this is exactly how I view his actions. I totally see his point, but I still disagree. My point with those examples was just to show that they occurred before liftoff of an intended (which, yes, I realize goes totally against an argument I made about our other disagreement, but as you'll see in the next section, I basically see what you're saying there and have no further arguments). This was what I assumed the arbitrary line was drawn at before, and that's why I linked that page as an example. Furthermore, if you look at the List of Human Spaceflights, you'll see that Apollo 1 isn't included there either, as they seem to not consider Apollo 1 as having intended to reach space, although they may have different standards on that page. So to follow TransporterMan's suggestion, I have added an RFC to this talk page, hoping that someone out there other than the two of us care. JustinTime55, please go ahead and edit the description if you feel it should be different!SaltySeas (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@SaltySeas: sigh I'm going to respond to two new silly things you brought up, and then I'm going to stop beating this dead horse.
  • I never said I thought "your actions were totally arbitrary"; I said it seems arbitrary to limit the list given here to incidents only in flight.
  • The List of human spaceflights is completely irrelevant to this issue; its criteria are clearly given as "all crewed spaceflights that reached an altitude of at least 100 km, or were launched with that intention but failed." Obviously Apollo 1 was never launched. But that list includes space flights, not spaceflight fatalities. It has nothing whatever to do with this context, which is fatality risk.
I'm going to close with something I recently found in a reliable source, which verifies that it would be original research to fail to classify the Apollo 1 deaths as spaceflight fatalities, in contradiction to how it was perceived at the time: Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson, Chariots For Apollo, chapter 9.2, "Stalked by the Spectre":
"Most persons who had been connected with the space program in any way remember that the tragedy caught them by surprise. In six years of operation, 19 Americans had flown in space (7 of them, including Grissom, twice) without serious injury. Procedures and precautions had been designed to foresee and prevent hazards; now it was demoralizing to realize the limits of human foresight. Several other astronauts had died, but none in duties directly associated with space flight. Airplane crashes had claimed the lives of Elliot See, Charles Bassett, and Theodore Freeman. These were traumatic experiences, but the loss of three men during a ground test for the first manned Apollo flight was a more grievous blow." (italics added) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Does Apollo 1 belong in the Fatality Risk section?

CLOSED BY DEFAULT AFTER 30 DAYS
Majority of commenters agree with retention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Apollo 1 be included in the Fatality Risk section? Both sides' arguments can be found in the section Talk:Human spaceflight#Does Apollo 1 belong in the "Fatality risk" section? above.SaltySeas (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Include. If someone got killed in the launching of a torpedo boat, it would not be excluded from the category of "naval deaths". If someone in s spacecraft got killed by an electrocution accident that could have happened identically in the same craft before take-off, we would not call that a terrestrial accident. This is nit-picking until someone can justify in a functionally and conceptually acceptable way why it makes a difference whether they were in space or not. If they are at risk in a way similar to what could happen in space, in activities planned for, aimed for, intended for, in preparation for, using equipment intended for and resembling the activities and equipment used in space, then that sounds to me like a duck and I'd call it a duck until someone gives me a better reason why we should have a special category defined by nothing but whether they happened to be in space at the time, whether that made a difference or not. JonRichfield (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. I'm inclined to agree with Jon, above. Since the fatality occurred in the spacecraft, while they were prepping for launch (albeit at an early stage, some time before the launch itself) and was directly related to issues with the spacecraft, I think it's legitimate to include it, since it is a fatality risk attached to spaceflight, and to a specific spacecraft, no less, regardless of where they happened to be at the time it occurred. I don't see any clear evidence that adopting this criterion would make the list overly long, unwieldy, or devoid of useful purpose. Anaxial (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. (addressing RFC call) First, AFAIU, the sources mentioned directly associate it with spaceflight. Second, that it was during test, is purely accidental; just as well could have happened during a real launch. Third, and IMO most important, this is a notable example, because this accident have led to changes in the procedures, increasing safety. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Conditional include I would make sure to make distinctions between accidents that actually occurred in spaceflight (this one didn't) and those that did. That means either making a separate table or just including a note on this incident if other pre-flight accidents aren't going to be listed. I liken this to JonRichfield's torpedo boat analogy if the boat isn't in the water yet when it's first being constructed, under maintenance, etc. Someone dying in an accident wouldn't be dying at sea, but rather in the process of prepping the boat. In this case, the person would not have died during actual spaceflight, but it would warrant mention elsewhere in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The summary clearly says "pre-launch test". I don't think we shall split hairs and tables now: the list of major accidents is pretty much limited. Clearly, nobody will include here cases when an assemblyman dropped a monkey wrench on the head of a foreman from the rocket top. Borderline cases may be talked through. When the list grows, we may start thinking about more structure, and even a separate page. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Include It was a notable event that significantly changed all later space flight missions. Changes included the capsule hatch design and no longer using a pure oxygen environment, etc.Wzrd1 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude. This is a currently a list of deaths from "accidents aboard spacecraft", so as it stands the three are a clear include. But this RfC is not about counting, it is (or should be) about the inclusion criteria at the top of the table. My view is only deaths caused during or as a result of actual spaceflights should be counted. Maproom (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Human spaceflight. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human spaceflight. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human spaceflight. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Asteroid Redirect Mission Ends Development

The Asteroid Redirect Mission was intended to develop a robotic spacecraft to visit a large near-Earth asteroid, collect a multi-ton boulder from its surface and redirect the boulder into orbit around the moon, where astronauts would have explored it and returned to Earth with samples. White House Space Policy Directive 1, issued Dec. 11, 2017, ended the mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:214D:8223:E500:754C:6A22:1E4E:CAFD (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Men and women

Why is it in this article we talk about 'the first woman … this, or that' but all the men are referred to as 'humans'. Perhaps when the first woman sets foot on the Moon we simply say "Mrs Astronaut was the 436th human to set foot on the Moon". 5.81.164.16 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Because she is the first woman. If only women had set foot on the Moon, then we would talk about the first man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:214D:8223:E500:754C:6A22:1E4E:CAFD (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human spaceflight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human spaceflight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human spaceflight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Too many American photographs

In the first four, three are American and one ISS. 2601:644:8100:7930:1829:598B:D26E:2268 (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Russian contribution to ISS

It's not obvious to me what this means:

Russia has continued cooperation though half of the International Space Station is its sole singular half.

My guess is that it means that Russia provided 50% of the ISS hardware, but that the country has not nothing since. Danimal57 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_spaceflight/Archive_1&oldid=1177945634"