Talk:Apollo–Soyuz: Difference between revisions
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Tom.Reding (talk | contribs) m Remove unknown params from WP Spaceflight: HSF, HSF-importance |
||
(41 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |
{{WikiProject Spaceflight|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Russia |
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|tech=yes|hist=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States |
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|UShistory=yes}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(365d) | archive = Talk:Apollo–Soyuz/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 8 }} |
|||
== 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" <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.224.83.39|206.224.83.39]] ([[User talk:206.224.83.39|talk]]) 20:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> |
|||
: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. [[User:CFLeon|CFLeon]] ([[User talk:CFLeon|talk]]) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Swigert's Removal == |
== Swigert's Removal == |
||
Per Deke Slayton, and verified by Andrew Chaikin and other space historians, Jack Swigert was in fact assigned to ASTP as CMP, but was removed prior to the official crew announcement as punishment for his involvement in the stamp scandal. The actual grounding wasn't for having actually been involved in the sale of the First Day Covers the A15 crew took with them to the Moon, but for having lied to Deke Slayton about whether he'd had any knowledge of the transaction. Although the NASA PAO recommended that Swigert be removed from the assignment because of his involvement - regardless of how peripheral it was - with the stamp scandal,, Deke Slayton confirmed numerous times before his passing that the actual reason was not that he was involved, but that Swigart had lied to Deke in the face repeatedly when interrogated about said involvement. [unsigned] |
Per Deke Slayton, and verified by Andrew Chaikin and other space historians, Jack Swigert was in fact assigned to ASTP as CMP, but was removed prior to the official crew announcement as punishment for his involvement in the stamp scandal. The actual grounding wasn't for having actually been involved in the sale of the First Day Covers the A15 crew took with them to the Moon, but for having lied to Deke Slayton about whether he'd had any knowledge of the transaction. Although the NASA PAO recommended that Swigert be removed from the assignment because of his involvement - regardless of how peripheral it was - with the stamp scandal,, Deke Slayton confirmed numerous times before his passing that the actual reason was not that he was involved, but that Swigart had lied to Deke in the face repeatedly when interrogated about said involvement. [unsigned] |
||
:If this is supported with reliable sources, it can be added into the article. [[User:Balon Greyjoy|Balon Greyjoy]] ([[User talk:Balon Greyjoy|talk]]) 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Weak language use. == |
||
Some info on the political background would be nice if somebody has it. [[User:84.58.41.51|84.58.41.51]] 21:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
|||
In the sentence "The assassination of Kennedy on November 22, 1963 and the removal from office of Khruschev on October 14, 1964, made any personal preferences of the respective leaders moot." the last word '''moot''' is a poor choice as there was no longer any need for debate or discussion. |
|||
== Bognor Regis? == |
|||
Can someone check the Bognor Regis fact. It stinks Wikihoax to me. [[User:Grobertson|Grobertson]] 22:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Idyllic press|Idyllic press]] ([[User talk:Idyllic press|talk]]) 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
It does appear to be true. My God, the things we find out. [[User:Grobertson|Grobertson]] 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:That is precisely what the word '''moot''' means, though. In American English, anyway. And there really is no other word in (any variety of) English that means ''exactly'' what moot does in American English. so... [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk:Firejuggler86|talk]]) 00:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion == |
|||
::Bognor Regis was the intended "handshake flyover point", per NASA and the PAO. |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: |
|||
* [[commons:File:ASTPpatch.svg|ASTPpatch.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-06-30T06:19:01.374094 | ASTPpatch.svg --> |
|||
* [[commons:File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project patch.svg|Apollo-Soyuz Test Project patch.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-06-30T06:19:01.374094 | Apollo-Soyuz Test Project patch.svg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 06:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|||
== Language barrier == |
|||
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|||
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. [[User:Blutfink|Blutfink]] 14:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* [[commons:File:Soyuz ASTP rocket launch.jpg|Soyuz ASTP rocket launch.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-07-25T22:38:48.914283 | Soyuz ASTP rocket launch.jpg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Author "USSR ACADEMY OF SCIENCES"|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 22:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Suitability of a quote == |
|||
: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. [[User:Gcapp1959|GBC]] 21:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
This article currently contains the following: |
|||
== 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? --<sup><font size="1">[[User_talk:Gadren|hello,]]</font></sup><b>[[User:Gadren|gadr]][[User:Gadren/Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Gadren|n]]</b> 21:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
{{quote frame| |
|||
== On display in California? == |
|||
The Americans also had their own concerns about Soviet spacecraft. [[Christopher C. Kraft Jr.|Christopher C. Kraft]], director of the [[Johnson Space Center]], criticized the design of the Soyuz: <blockquote>"We in [[NASA]] rely on redundant components — if an instrument fails during flight, our crews switch to another in an attempt to continue the mission. Each Soyuz component, however, is designed for a specific function; if one fails, the cosmonauts land as soon as possible. The Apollo vehicle also relied on astronaut piloting to a much greater extent than did the Soyuz machine."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ezell |first1=Edward|last2=Ezell|first2=Linda|title=The Partnership: A History of the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project|date=1978|chapter=Foreword|chapter-url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/forwrd.htm |publisher=NASA|location=Washington, D.C.|url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4209/toc.htm}} {{PD-notice}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
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? [[User:Errabee|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]]. [[User:Errabee|Errabee]] 04:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I removed the last line because it's a criticism of the Apollo, not of the Soyuz. Editor {{u|BilCat}} claims that it is in fact a criticism of the Soyuz. |
|||
== Androgynous Peripheral Attach System == |
|||
Probably worth adding a reference to the [[Androgynous Peripheral Attach System]]. [[Special:Contributions/141.150.24.19|141.150.24.19]] ([[User talk:141.150.24.19|talk]]) 11:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Reasons it is more likely a criticism of the Apollo: |
|||
==Stamps== |
|||
* It's phrased as a limitation ("relied on astronaut piloting"). If it were being presented as a benefit, something like "allowed astronaut piloting" would be much more likely. |
|||
Could mention the stamps issued by both sides.... [[:Image:Soyuz-Apollon.JPG]] etc. -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
* In context in the source, Kraft criticizes the Soyuz, then has this mystery line, and then expresses an issue about both programs, making it likely that he's listing concerns about both of them in the paragraph. |
|||
This is an issue of likelihood--there isn't hard evidence either way. But that means we shouldn't be presenting it as criticism of the Soyuz. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 03:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Restored edits == |
|||
It's a criticism of the the Soyuz and the Soviets - because they were not competent of flexible enough to trust the pilots. Active piloting is superior to automatic "spam in a can" operations. |
|||
I restored edits of mine that [[User:Gwen Gale|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. |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
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. |
|||
== Featured picture scheduled for POTD == |
|||
I would be happy to address any specific concerns regarding my edits. [[User:Ylee|YLee]] ([[User talk:Ylee|talk]]) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hello! This is to let editors know that [[:File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Flown Silver Robbins Medallion.jpg]], a [[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|featured picture]] used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Picture of the day|picture of the day]] (POTD) for July 15, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at [[Template:POTD/2022-07-15]]. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the [[Main Page]]. If you have any concerns, please place a message at [[Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day]]. Thank you! <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">'''[[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Adam Cuerden|talk]])</sup><sub>Has about 7.8% of all [[WP:FP|FPs]]</sub></span> 18:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC) <!-- Template:UpcomingPOTD --> |
|||
:Truth be told, I may have been blinded by [[:File:Portrait_of_ASTP_crews.jpg|the crews' earth tone, height-of-1970s-fashion flight suits]]. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<div style="margin-top:4px; border:1px solid #ddcef2; background:#faf5ff; overflow:auto;"><div style="margin:0.6em 0.4em 0.1em;">{{POTD/Day|2022-07-15|excludeheader=yes}}</div></div> |
|||
== Remove opinion not relevant to the reference or the article == |
|||
::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! |
|||
The Lead currently contains the following sentence and supporting reference “...and it is generally considered to mark the end of the [[Space Race]], which had begun in 1957 with the Soviet Union's launch of [[Sputnik 1]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Encyclopedia of United States National Security |publisher=SAGE Publications |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K751AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT747 |date=21 December 2005 |editor-last=Samuels |editor-first=Richard J. |editor-link=Richard J. Samuels |edition=1st |page=669 |isbn=978-0-7619-2927-7 |quote=Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory. […] The formal end of the space race occurred with the 1975 joint Apollo–Soyuz mission, in which U.S. and Soviet spacecraft docked, or joined, in orbit while their crews visited one another's craft and performed joint scientific experiments.}}</ref>” The reference also contains the following quote “Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory. […] The formal end of the space race occurred with the 1975 joint Apollo–Soyuz mission, in which U.S. and Soviet spacecraft docked, or joined, in orbit while their crews visited one another's craft and performed joint scientific experiments.”. I attempted to delete or modify “Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory” , however both my edits has been reverted by BilCat. I believe the section about "American victory" is not relevant to this sentence and should be removed. I also note that the article does not mention "American victory" anywhere, it only appears in tbe quote. Finally the comment about "American victory" is controversal and I note that the [[Space Race]] lead states the following: |
|||
== Creating Criticisms Section, Adding to Legacy Section == |
|||
{{tq|Kennedy's Moon landing goal was achieved in July 1969, with the flight of [[Apollo 11]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059A|title=Apollo 11 Command and Service Module (CSM)|website=NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive|access-date=November 20, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1969-059C|title=Apollo 11 Lunar Module / EASEP|website=NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive|access-date=November 20, 2019}}</ref><ref name="orbit">{{cite web |url=https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/apollo-program/landing-missions/apollo11.cfm |title=Apollo 11 Mission Summary |website=Smithsonian Air and Space Museum}}</ref> a singular achievement considered by the Americans as overshadowing any combination of Soviet achievements that have been made. However, such an opinion is generally contentious, with others attributing the first man in space as being a much larger achievement.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Frost |first1=Jennifer |title=Who really won the US-Soviet space race? |url=https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2019/07/19/who-really-won-space-race.html |website=The University of Auckland |access-date=17 February 2022}}</ref>}} |
|||
'''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 [http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2009/07/31/the-apollo-disappointment-industry/ 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 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19750713&id=wegNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=onkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2210,2701492 the joint mission]? Other critical issues could also be discussed. |
|||
In summary, I believe the quote "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" should be removed from this article. {{re|BilCat}}, can you explain why you reverted my edits? [[User:Ilenart626|Ilenart626]] ([[User talk:Ilenart626|talk]]) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not speaking for BillCat, but I basically agree with his reversions. Which Wikipedia pillar obliges us to ''avoid'' or ''remove'' controversial statements? We just have to observe [[WP:Verifiability]] and [[WP:Controversial articles|be careful to present controversy]] in a balanced, neutral way, and [[WP:Don't "teach the controversy"|''don't'' teach them]]. I believe you are pushing a POV, and Prof. Jennifer Frost is all wet: the contention that the first man in space is a greater achievement than landing men on the Moon, makes as much sense as saying the first caveman to crawl out of his cave and build the first shelter achieved more than the construction of the Eiffel Tower, or Empire State Building, or ... . And the "first woman in space achievement" would be the equivalent of the US stuffing [[Sally Field]] or [[Patty Duke]] into a Mercury capsule; at least either of these two girls I'm sure looked much better in a bikini than Valentina Tereshkova. Frost also can't have it both ways: she says the Space Race was essentially a military arms race, yet the USSR touted their "achievements" as scientific, technologogical, and humanitarian. |
|||
'''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 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1988&dat=19750726&id=_0ciAAAAIBAJ&sjid=B60FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1466,2144068 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 [http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/apollosoyuz_anniversary_000713.html future collaboration] between the US and Russia? What was the impact of ASTP on the Shuttle program, Sky Lab, or ISS, if any? |
|||
:In complete historical context of the Space Race, the Moon landing achievement carries the due weight. And the Space Race wasn't over in 1975; it didn't end until the USSR was gone in 1991.[[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see how we can use a source that includes the statement "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" to justify saying that Apollo-Soyuz is "generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race." [[User talk:Vaulter|<span style="color:#F67280; font-family:Sans-Serif">'''-- Vaulter'''</span>]] 16:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::That's actually a good catch; one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The US and USSR shaking hands just seems to make a feel-good, no=hard-feelings "end", but it didn't really end. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, on second thought, when the Space Race ended is really out of scope for this subject, so maybe the National Security encyclopedia's opinion quote should really be striken as irrelevant? [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::That's actually a good catch; one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The US and USSR shaking hands just seems to make a feel-good, no=hard-feelings "end", but it didn't really end. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok, can we agree to remove the quote "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" from this article? Or alternatively remove the existing reference and quote and find an alternative reference that supports Apollo-Soyuz is "generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race." [[User:Ilenart626|Ilenart626]] ([[User talk:Ilenart626|talk]]) 20:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
''Just a few thoughts that could be discussed in further detail...'' —— [[User:Wiki1605|Wiki1605]] ([[User talk:Wiki1605|talk]]) 04:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::For example, replace with this reference [https://astronomy.com/news/2020/07/apollo-soyuz-mission-when-the-space-race-ended Apollo-Soyuz mission: When the space race ended] [[User:Ilenart626|Ilenart626]] ([[User talk:Ilenart626|talk]]) 21:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::''No ...'' because it's still a matter of opinion. That source doesn't verify it's "generally considered" to be the end. What we have to decide is whether or not we want to mention at all in the Apollo-Soyuz article that ''some people'' (some smart-Alec will probably tag {{who}}) consider it the end of the Race. When the Race ended of course is relevant to [[Space Race]] and should be carefully explained there. I'm thinking we should remove it here; it could even be considered a type of [[WP:POVFORK]]. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 21:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|BilCat|Vaulter}} I'm trying to get a consensus here, before I just rip out the reference to end of Space Race. What say you? [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 21:51, 15 July 2022 (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... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I concur the end of the space race is out of scope for this article, especially in the lead. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree with removing “, and was considered by some to mark the end of the [[Space Race]], which began with the Soviet Union's launch of [[Sputnik 1]] in 1957” including removing the reference. [[User:Ilenart626|Ilenart626]] ([[User talk:Ilenart626|talk]]) 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|||
: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. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 20:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===When does a race end?=== |
|||
== Proposed merge of [[Crews of Apollo–Soyuz Test Project]] == |
|||
Something else to consider: In my hometown, we hold an annual [[Manchester Road Race]] (in Connecticut, not England) on Thanksgiving day. The race ''is not over when the winner crosses the finish line,'' ''(A dying [[Stephen Boyd]] gasps to [[Charlton Heston]], "The race goes on, Judah...it goes on!")'' since about half the town enters the race, of whom only about half bother to train for a run. The race is not over until the last untrained walker finishes. The US obviously "won" the Space Race when accomplishing the Moon shot, but the "race" (competition) did not in fact end, but the USSR continued with military programs like [[Almaz]], [[Buran (spacecraft)]], and [[Polyus (spacecraft)]] until it collapsed in 1991. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Was the Space Race one race, or a series of races with different goals for each? The US obviously won the Race to the Moon, but is that winning the whole Space Race? Depends on how you look at it. But that's also beyond the scope of this article, and the talk page too. [[User:BilCat|BilCat]] ([[User talk:BilCat|talk]]) 22:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::Agree that it is out of scope for this article [[User:Ilenart626|Ilenart626]] ([[User talk:Ilenart626|talk]]) 01:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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 [[WP:SPLIT|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. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 21:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
**I am sorry about that, I got carried away [[User:Soerfm|Soerfm]] ([[User talk:Soerfm|talk]]) 22:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==extreme ultraviolet== |
|||
== [[: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 [[Wikipedia:picture of the day|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! — [[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{POTD/2015-07-15}} |
|||
Should probably mention the extreme ultraviolet work by apollo. I have a source and will add when I have time.[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 19:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Apollo Use of Pure Oxygen == |
|||
:Added note that the 4 sources were HZ 43, FEIGE 24, proximi centuri and what NASA calls the Pavo object |
|||
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. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.197.112.68|142.197.112.68]] ([[User talk:142.197.112.68|talk]]) 03:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:''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. [[User:JustinTime55|JustinTime55]] ([[User talk:JustinTime55|talk]]) 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/enwiki/api/citations/19780020078/downloads/19780020078.pdf |
|||
== External links modified == |
|||
:Another paper suggests that the Pavo object was [[HD 192273]]: |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
:https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978ApJ...219..585C |
|||
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Apollo–Soyuz Test Project]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=744626563 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|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 |
|||
:[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 21:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 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 [https://archive.org/details/paceprogr00libr Vol. I] (668 pp.)and [https://archive.org/details/sprogr00libr Vol. II] (221 pp.) on the Internet Archive. It would be helpful if citations referenced specific pages in the report. —[[User:Undomelin|Undomelin]] ([[User talk: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: |
|||
* [[commons:File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project symbolic painting.jpg|Apollo-Soyuz Test Project symbolic painting.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2019-11-19T14:21:46.096656 | Apollo-Soyuz Test Project symbolic painting.jpg --> |
|||
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project symbolic painting.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 14:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Weak language use. == |
|||
In the sentence "The assassination of Kennedy on November 22, 1963 and the removal from office of Khruschev on October 14, 1964, made any personal preferences of the respective leaders moot." the last word '''moot''' is a poor choice as there was no longer any need for debate or discussion. |
|||
[[User:Idyllic press|Idyllic press]] ([[User talk:Idyllic press|talk]]) 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:That is precisely what the word '''moot''' means, though. In American English, anyway. And there really is no other word in (any variety of) English that means ''exactly'' what moot does in American English. so... [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk:Firejuggler86|talk]]) 00:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:19, 30 March 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apollo–Soyuz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Swigert's Removal
[edit]Per Deke Slayton, and verified by Andrew Chaikin and other space historians, Jack Swigert was in fact assigned to ASTP as CMP, but was removed prior to the official crew announcement as punishment for his involvement in the stamp scandal. The actual grounding wasn't for having actually been involved in the sale of the First Day Covers the A15 crew took with them to the Moon, but for having lied to Deke Slayton about whether he'd had any knowledge of the transaction. Although the NASA PAO recommended that Swigert be removed from the assignment because of his involvement - regardless of how peripheral it was - with the stamp scandal,, Deke Slayton confirmed numerous times before his passing that the actual reason was not that he was involved, but that Swigart had lied to Deke in the face repeatedly when interrogated about said involvement. [unsigned]
- If this is supported with reliable sources, it can be added into the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak language use.
[edit]In the sentence "The assassination of Kennedy on November 22, 1963 and the removal from office of Khruschev on October 14, 1964, made any personal preferences of the respective leaders moot." the last word moot is a poor choice as there was no longer any need for debate or discussion.
Idyllic press (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- That is precisely what the word moot means, though. In American English, anyway. And there really is no other word in (any variety of) English that means exactly what moot does in American English. so... Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]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) 22:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Suitability of a quote
[edit]This article currently contains the following:
The Americans also had their own concerns about Soviet spacecraft. Christopher C. Kraft, director of the Johnson Space Center, criticized the design of the Soyuz:"We in NASA rely on redundant components — if an instrument fails during flight, our crews switch to another in an attempt to continue the mission. Each Soyuz component, however, is designed for a specific function; if one fails, the cosmonauts land as soon as possible. The Apollo vehicle also relied on astronaut piloting to a much greater extent than did the Soyuz machine."[1]
I removed the last line because it's a criticism of the Apollo, not of the Soyuz. Editor BilCat claims that it is in fact a criticism of the Soyuz.
Reasons it is more likely a criticism of the Apollo:
- It's phrased as a limitation ("relied on astronaut piloting"). If it were being presented as a benefit, something like "allowed astronaut piloting" would be much more likely.
- In context in the source, Kraft criticizes the Soyuz, then has this mystery line, and then expresses an issue about both programs, making it likely that he's listing concerns about both of them in the paragraph.
This is an issue of likelihood--there isn't hard evidence either way. But that means we shouldn't be presenting it as criticism of the Soyuz. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a criticism of the the Soyuz and the Soviets - because they were not competent of flexible enough to trust the pilots. Active piloting is superior to automatic "spam in a can" operations.
References
- ^ Ezell, Edward; Ezell, Linda (1978). "Foreword". The Partnership: A History of the Apollo–Soyuz Test Project. Washington, D.C.: NASA. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
Featured picture scheduled for POTD
[edit]Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Flown Silver Robbins Medallion.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 15, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-07-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
NASA space-flown Apollo medallion for the Apollo–Soyuz mission. Apollo–Soyuz was the first crewed international space mission, carried out jointly by the United States and the Soviet Union in 1975. A United States Apollo capsule and a Soviet Union Soyuz capsule launched into orbit on July 15, and millions of people around the world watched on television two days later as the spacecraft docked and the two crews shook hands through the hatch. The project was a symbol of détente between the two superpowers during the Cold War, and it is generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race, which had begun in 1957 with the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1. Credit: Robbins Company for NASA; photographed by Heritage Auctions
Recently featured:
|
Remove opinion not relevant to the reference or the article
[edit]The Lead currently contains the following sentence and supporting reference “...and it is generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race, which had begun in 1957 with the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1.[1]” The reference also contains the following quote “Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory. […] The formal end of the space race occurred with the 1975 joint Apollo–Soyuz mission, in which U.S. and Soviet spacecraft docked, or joined, in orbit while their crews visited one another's craft and performed joint scientific experiments.”. I attempted to delete or modify “Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory” , however both my edits has been reverted by BilCat. I believe the section about "American victory" is not relevant to this sentence and should be removed. I also note that the article does not mention "American victory" anywhere, it only appears in tbe quote. Finally the comment about "American victory" is controversal and I note that the Space Race lead states the following:
Kennedy's Moon landing goal was achieved in July 1969, with the flight of Apollo 11,[2][3][4] a singular achievement considered by the Americans as overshadowing any combination of Soviet achievements that have been made. However, such an opinion is generally contentious, with others attributing the first man in space as being a much larger achievement.[5]
In summary, I believe the quote "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" should be removed from this article. @BilCat:, can you explain why you reverted my edits? Ilenart626 (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not speaking for BillCat, but I basically agree with his reversions. Which Wikipedia pillar obliges us to avoid or remove controversial statements? We just have to observe WP:Verifiability and be careful to present controversy in a balanced, neutral way, and don't teach them. I believe you are pushing a POV, and Prof. Jennifer Frost is all wet: the contention that the first man in space is a greater achievement than landing men on the Moon, makes as much sense as saying the first caveman to crawl out of his cave and build the first shelter achieved more than the construction of the Eiffel Tower, or Empire State Building, or ... . And the "first woman in space achievement" would be the equivalent of the US stuffing Sally Field or Patty Duke into a Mercury capsule; at least either of these two girls I'm sure looked much better in a bikini than Valentina Tereshkova. Frost also can't have it both ways: she says the Space Race was essentially a military arms race, yet the USSR touted their "achievements" as scientific, technologogical, and humanitarian.
- In complete historical context of the Space Race, the Moon landing achievement carries the due weight. And the Space Race wasn't over in 1975; it didn't end until the USSR was gone in 1991.JustinTime55 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can use a source that includes the statement "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" to justify saying that Apollo-Soyuz is "generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race." -- Vaulter 16:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's actually a good catch; one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The US and USSR shaking hands just seems to make a feel-good, no=hard-feelings "end", but it didn't really end. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, on second thought, when the Space Race ended is really out of scope for this subject, so maybe the National Security encyclopedia's opinion quote should really be striken as irrelevant? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's actually a good catch; one doesn't have anything to do with the other. The US and USSR shaking hands just seems to make a feel-good, no=hard-feelings "end", but it didn't really end. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, can we agree to remove the quote "Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory" from this article? Or alternatively remove the existing reference and quote and find an alternative reference that supports Apollo-Soyuz is "generally considered to mark the end of the Space Race." Ilenart626 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- For example, replace with this reference Apollo-Soyuz mission: When the space race ended Ilenart626 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- No ... because it's still a matter of opinion. That source doesn't verify it's "generally considered" to be the end. What we have to decide is whether or not we want to mention at all in the Apollo-Soyuz article that some people (some smart-Alec will probably tag [who?]) consider it the end of the Race. When the Race ended of course is relevant to Space Race and should be carefully explained there. I'm thinking we should remove it here; it could even be considered a type of WP:POVFORK. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @BilCat and Vaulter: I'm trying to get a consensus here, before I just rip out the reference to end of Space Race. What say you? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur the end of the space race is out of scope for this article, especially in the lead. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with removing “, and was considered by some to mark the end of the Space Race, which began with the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957” including removing the reference. Ilenart626 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I concur the end of the space race is out of scope for this article, especially in the lead. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Samuels, Richard J., ed. (21 December 2005). Encyclopedia of United States National Security (1st ed.). SAGE Publications. p. 669. ISBN 978-0-7619-2927-7.
Most observers felt that the U.S. moon landing ended the space race with a decisive American victory. […] The formal end of the space race occurred with the 1975 joint Apollo–Soyuz mission, in which U.S. and Soviet spacecraft docked, or joined, in orbit while their crews visited one another's craft and performed joint scientific experiments.
- ^ "Apollo 11 Command and Service Module (CSM)". NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. Retrieved November 20, 2019.
- ^ "Apollo 11 Lunar Module / EASEP". NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive. Retrieved November 20, 2019.
- ^ "Apollo 11 Mission Summary". Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
- ^ Frost, Jennifer. "Who really won the US-Soviet space race?". The University of Auckland. Retrieved 17 February 2022.
When does a race end?
[edit]Something else to consider: In my hometown, we hold an annual Manchester Road Race (in Connecticut, not England) on Thanksgiving day. The race is not over when the winner crosses the finish line, (A dying Stephen Boyd gasps to Charlton Heston, "The race goes on, Judah...it goes on!") since about half the town enters the race, of whom only about half bother to train for a run. The race is not over until the last untrained walker finishes. The US obviously "won" the Space Race when accomplishing the Moon shot, but the "race" (competition) did not in fact end, but the USSR continued with military programs like Almaz, Buran (spacecraft), and Polyus (spacecraft) until it collapsed in 1991. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Was the Space Race one race, or a series of races with different goals for each? The US obviously won the Race to the Moon, but is that winning the whole Space Race? Depends on how you look at it. But that's also beyond the scope of this article, and the talk page too. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that it is out of scope for this article Ilenart626 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
extreme ultraviolet
[edit]Should probably mention the extreme ultraviolet work by apollo. I have a source and will add when I have time.©Geni (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Added note that the 4 sources were HZ 43, FEIGE 24, proximi centuri and what NASA calls the Pavo object
- Another paper suggests that the Pavo object was HD 192273:
- C-Class spaceflight articles
- High-importance spaceflight articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- C-Class Soviet Union articles
- High-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- C-Class Russia articles
- High-importance Russia articles
- High-importance C-Class Russia articles
- C-Class Russia (technology and engineering) articles
- Technology and engineering in Russia task force articles
- C-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- C-Class United States History articles
- Unknown-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- WikiProject United States articles