Talk:Space exploration/Archive 1

French and Dutch

The French and Dutch Wikipedias have some more history and information regarding the emergence of Space exploration. Though I don't speak any of these languages I noticed one of them mentioned the V2 spacecraft and other historical expirements. I am wondering if someone can help in translating some material from there (I will try to figure out the machine translation, anyway... ;) , 'cause the article in its current form is rather dull..(true) -- Rotem Dan 22:13 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Space Travel redirect

Making Space travel redirect to Space exploration is wrong. Space travel would logically include hypthetical/fictional Science fiction) space travel, while many aspects of Space exploration do not involve human space travel, but rather robot probes (or, arguably, ground-based facilities).

I'd suggest writing an article about Space travel in fiction, then linking it here and on the appropriate science fiction pages. There's plenty of source material available, and you could even have a history... — RJH 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan's Space Home Page

I included a link to this page: http://www.planet4589.org/space/ - it contains many interesting things about the topic. I don't know how Wikipedia deals with copyrights, etc. but if someone can contact Jonathan and receive his permission - his page has many interesting informations, that can be added to WikiPedia: - launch database - Jonathan Space report (very well done!!!)

NPOV Criticisms

It seems to me that this page has serious NPOV problems in the "Criticism" section. The objections made to space exploration should be presented along with the counter-arguments presented by the space advocacy community. I added the final paragraph with the fact that 71% of the public supports space exploration, but the whole section still seems overly hostile towards exploration to me. It is my opinion that the arguments made by anti-exploration individuals are weak and don't stand up under closer scrutiny, however, that's just my opinion. We should allow readers to make that cloer inspection of the arguments for themselves by presenting both sides of the debate.

I don't feel like going into all of your edits now, but you've got some things mixed up, especially in the text you added and also refer to here (with the 71% supporters). Firstly, the arguments are not against space exploration (which I'm a strong supporter of by the way), but against manned space exploration (which also seems to be referred to as 'space travel'). Also, you state that "the public and scientific community remain largely supportive of both manned and unmanned space exploration" without giving any suport for the bit about the scientific community. There may be some, but 'largely supportive' is certainly not true.

Above that you talk about the cost. Because the total government spending (where - worldwide or are you talking about the US?) is so small it's extra important that it is spent wisely. So the argument goes the other way around. Also, I don't know the exact figures, but if for the price of a manned space flight you can do ten unmanned flights, that's a strong argument against any manned flights.

Finally, your wording is not too clear. The rest of your edits don't seem to change too much about the content. It's just not too clear. So I'll do something very irritating and revert all your edits. Hopefully, people with more time can choose between the alternatives with a little more subtlety. Sorry. DirkvdM 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some counter-arguments and removed some POV words from the criticisms so it's a bit more balanced now. --220.245.178.137 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It also says that supporters of manned spaceflight say that the true value of spaceflight is patriotism. I have never heard this outside of this article, so I doubt that it's a major viewpoint. WikiMarshall 07:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, you've never heard of the "Space Race"? You don't think peopled space flight has been largely for prestige and bragging rights? (Sure, there are important anatomical studies involved too, which would probably be costlier with artificial subjects, but maybe not, but the dollars roll in when it's US against THEM.) This has been widely reported since Sputnik, Gagarin, etc. Just look at how the US and USSR tried to beat each other to this and that milestone. Please, patriotism as justification for crewed spaceflight has only ever been mentioned here? You're absolutely kidding right? If not, you probably shouldn't be touching other people's edits. I mean, your suggestion is totally laughable. I don't mean to be cruel, but did you even think about what you were writing above? Or did you mean something else? It's not just a major viewpoint, it was probably the most important factor in peopled spaceflight to the moon at least. We can experiment on people in orbit, but we definitely don't "need" to send people to the moon, at least not by the end of the '60s! "We choose to do this because it is hard," not "scientifically necessary", but "cool" and accomplishment worth bragging about: patriotic. I prefer the science myself, but I think the point first made and then later made to be an isolated opinion is correct and the criticism way off, even if I personally lean more towards the critic's corner. Wilnap (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In the article it states that critics "point out" that even a fraction of the money spent on space exploration would make an enormous difference in fighting disease and hunger in the world. The phrase "point out" suggests that something is fact and does not belong in wikipedia. Especially since what they "point out" is extremely questionable. Changing it to 'say'. Robotical 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What truly amazes me is why not the space exploration critics point to the hugely larger sums spent by USA administration in the arms industry which benefit only a few individuals and kill tens of thousands every year. What NASA receives annually is only a tinny drop in a bucket compared with what corporate America bestows to the oil and arms (including private armies, security agencies and spies services) industries every year. Americans, when will you finnally wake up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.175.220 (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Lack of ESA?

I'm pretty sure the European Space Agency should get a word in here... they are after all rather important on the commerical front and have started exploration missions. Should I just go ahead and add it? --137.205.148.5 13:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There is a debate going on in UIL over this topic, so it would be very nice if every source could be listed... Also, if there is anyone I need to contact to get the sources, please tell me. Thanks!

People

Added short description including V2 design engineer... and key people from USSR and NASA.

• No mention of Reinhold Tilling? ComaDivine 05:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• I would be pleased to see this added - Lxs

• Added. :) ComaDivine 15:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES PLEASE!!! I'd like to know where the line about Nasa only being 0.5% of total government funding comes from!!!!!!!!!!!?

If you look at the current NASA Budget, and divide it by the current United States federal budget, you get approximately 0.06, or about 1/2 of 1%. Joema 15:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

China

In my opinion, the timeline of important events should feature China's first mission into space. It was the first non-US or non-Soviet mission into space after all. 68.248.239.87 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is very disappointing

First, my apologies to the people who invested time on this article. I'm sure there was originally a good article in here somewhere but it has since been pecked to death by ducks. Space Exploration is among the most exciting things human beings have ever achieved but there is precious little indication of this in the Wikipedia article. The paucity of information contained in the article is almost laughable. Alan Sheppard and John Glenn's flights are not mentioned. The first flyby of Mars by Mariner IV is not mentioned (data from Mariner-IV extinguished the Percival Lowell / H.G. Wells myth that Mars was once an Earth-like world with canals from an ancient civilization, etc.). The first successful landing on Mars by Viking 1 is not discussed. Only one short sentence is provided for the destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia but a whole paragraph is provided for the SpaceShipOne publicity stunt (SpaceShipOne's peak Mach number was 3). The whole driving factor of Cold War politics is fobbed off in a single sentence. The impact of Werner von Braun is largely ignored. The motivation behind the American Space Program can not be fully understood without mentioning von Braun's 1952 article in Collier's Magazine followed up with his 1969 "Mars Plan" proposal that was presented to Vice President Spiro Agnew. The rejection of von Braun's "Mars Plan" by President Nixon lead to the abandonment of NERVA, the Saturn-V and initiated the long road to perdition with the Space Shuttle. Finally the boring screed titled "Criticism" is out of place and violates NPOV. IMHO, this article is beyond salvage. Delete it and start again. Hopefully someone can write a respectable article given a fresh start. Egg plant 17:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Here here. Wilnap (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this article could use expansion and balance, you seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick about NPOV. In fact, removing the criticism would make the article unacceptable POV. Also the amount of text given to SpaceShipOne seems entirely appropriate and suggest you look at the article Space race for details about that, far more than this page could ever support and a featured article to boot. Rmhermen 20:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

X-15 was far more capable as a high altitude aircraft and much more important to the Space Program than SpaceShipOne. X-15 was not mentioned once in the Space Exploration article despite its technological importance. The Space Exploration article needs to be rewritten from scratch. Egg plant 20:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll disagree with you here, Egg plant. While the X-15 was clearly more accomplished, SpaceShipOne was a new approach: independent, commercial. Because it was the first such effort to receive recognition as such it is far more important than one step in the replacement of the Shuttle (ISS). Of course the X-15 did more for the "Space Program" than SpaceShipOne, because the "Space Program" is the government's space exploration bag. SpaceShipOne isn't in the "Space Program".

What I find really ironic is that the Russians initiated space tourism and NASA appears to be completely and strongly against it, at least for the near future or on their craft. What NASA fails to realize here, it seems, is that public support will never be overwhelming until spaceflight is available to the average person, even if it costs a year's salary. Right now it's still in the couple/few lifetime's worth of salary for the average person, so it still smacks of elitism. (Of course, the choice of the name "White Knight" smacks of worse.) If you want to help turn the tide on public opinion at the street level, urge your local prosecutor to go after preachers who get a lot of mileage out of claiming space exploration dollars could be saving lives on Earth for making political statements fro the pulpit, which is an illegal use of their 501(c)(3) privileges. You may have to wait until they speak directly to a pending spending bill, but you're likely to be rewarded with just that. Still, it's a tricky venture that could easily turn into a PR nightmare, but at least it's the good fight. Wilnap (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section makes technical claims that are in part flat out wrong and in part disputed technical opinion masquerading as technical fact. It also contains poorly labeled biased opinions.

My qualifications for stating that the technical claims are wrong include being an active spacecraft designer for both manned and unmanned spacecraft. There are things that robots do well, there are things that require (at this point in history, with the technology available today) people, and there are things which people can do proportionally more efficiently than robots, though either are capable. I've done a peer-reviewed technical paper which concluded that well done science missions scientific returns per dollar are roughly equal between manned and unmanned programs. The results were not controversial.

The historical gaps pointed out by Egg plant are also legitimate serious issues with this article.

I disagree on first inspection with deletion and recreation from scratch being the best remedy. I believe we can improve in place. I am willing to commit to helping with this project.. AFTER the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation System proposals are due and I have some semblance of free time again. Georgewilliamherbert 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do. We always like to have people write about what they really know well. Rmhermen 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Having just redone both my vehicle weight and balance analysis and cost timelines for my proposal, I popped back over here for a second. I would like to propose some directions to start. Let's start with some suggested references...

Burrows, This New Ocean

McDougall, ...the Heavens and the Earth : A Political History of the Space Age

Georgewilliamherbert 09:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What georgewilliamherbert is suggesting here is that the validity of pro's and cons are purely technical. so there never was a space race in which both parties took risks to beat each other? why is nasa still operating space shuttles that would kill thousands of people a week if they were to fly as much as airliners? His analisys of the pro's and con's of manned space exploration completely depends on what it is that you want to achieve with it. yes, some things are better left to robots, but who remembers that the soviets got moon samples before the americans by using robots? robots don't say historical words, american robots don't hug soviet ones in space, robots don't get tragically killed in accidents or get hero receptions in the white house or the kremlin. so i would say that georgewilliamherberts argument is purely technical, and it is also totally dependent on what his criteria for technical success are.

Apart from this, i would also like to say that him being a designer makes him biased rather than anything else. Off course he's gonna be pro, why else would he be doing this job? will his boss tolerate a highly critical attitude? all in all, i don't think he's our man to write a great article about this subject. besides, the fact that manned space exploration is of high propaganda value is exemplified by the many strong, irrational or emotional reactions to this subject. Why can't people simply accept that climbing the mount everest or travelling to mars are simply things we better don't try?

Above unsigned comment from 134.58.253.131

For your information, you should sign your comments with four ~ characters (~~~~) to insert the name/date tag you see everywhere.

In terms of my boss, that would be me. I own the company. Not much of one, but we do get around.

I am not suggesting that there are only technical pros and cons; there is a whole world of policy (both space-specific policy, and general national and international policy and politics). There were some specific issues here with the article which made technical claims (not policy claims) which were technically simply wrong. The policy issues, distinct from technical ones, are completely a different matter.

You have some very strong opinions on the matter. That's good, you care enough to have looked at it. But it's a pretty big and complicated problem. It's true that even experts disagree about what's best to do and what risks are, but they're actually very different arguments than the ones that tend to get made in public policy debates. Georgewilliamherbert 03:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

ok george, i'm sorry about this, but i was writing the above comment, then i had to do something else, and then i completed it, but when i uploaded it i saw you had already answered it. sorry for that. if that's ok for you i'd rather delete my first draft.here is the second version i had written. as you can see it's a bit more complete:(by the way: i'm gonna register, it didn't work the first time but i'll try again)here it comes: What georgewilliamherbert is suggesting here is that the validity of pro's and cons are purely technical. so there never was a space race in which both parties took risks to beat each other? his analisys completely depends on what it is that you want to achieve with it. yes, some things are better left to robots, but who remembers that the soviets got moon samples before the americans by using robots? robots don't say historical words, american robots don't hug soviet ones in space, robots don't get tragically killed in accidents or get hero receptions in the white house or the kremlin. so i would say that georgewilliamherberts argument is purely technical, and it is also totally dependent on what his criteria for technical success are. Apart from this, i would also like to say that him being a designer makes him biased rather than anything else. Off course he's gonna be pro, why else would he be doing this job? all in all, i don't think he's our man to write a great article about this subject. i would also like to add some critisism to the 'critisism' section. First of all it doesn't even mention re-entry systems, part of which are heat shields, and the costs and technical risks of them. secondly, space programs have always been overcredited for many inventions. it didn't do all that much for the development of computers (internet porn did much more for that:-p)or for many other things. It is often overlooked that spacecraft are designed with an emphasys on safety and reliability, which often favours existing technologies. thirdly, there is the issue of usefullness of space technologies to other parts of society. computers may be vital, but what about cryogenic rocket engines, orbital maneuvring systems, adaptation of systems to zero-G and extreme temperatures, etc.? Finally, there is the issue of the large workforce that's needed to assist and recover manned spacecraft. unmanned satellites or probes need only a fraction of what manned spacecraft need. the shuttle program alone employs 25.000 people! all in all i would say that the critisism section is incomplete, and the rest of the article is even more incomplete, so instead of deleting, this article needs expansion. i've also read the dutch version. it's not bad, but it's uncritical and very brief. i think this article has a higher potential then the dutch one. xxx

Note: The Russians did not get lunar samples before the Americans. Apollo 11 was more than a year before the Luna 16 mission. Rmhermen 21:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Egg Plant's and Georgewilliamherbert's points are on target. This article commits an all-too-common Wikipedia flaw: light on meaningful detail and heavy on criticism. The primary goal of an eycyclopedia article IS NOT a critical review of the topic. It IS NOT to air pro/con positions on the topic. IT IS to document and explain the topic. Take a look at this Encarta article on the same subject: [1]. THAT is what this article should look more like. Joema 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a good example - note that it is nine pages long - far more detailed than this article can have. That's why we have separate articles like Space Race. The criticism section cannot be eliminated - focused, verified, balannced, yes, but the article must include it. Rmhermen 21:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The length is beside the point. The Encarta article doesn't have even a short a criticism section, despite being nine pages long. The Space Race article also doesn't have a criticism section. Neither does Project Apollo. Despite cars having killed more people than all 20th century wars combined, the automobile article doesn't have a criticism section. Why? Because the prime directive of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic, NOT editorialize about it. There are plenty of opportunities on Usenet, etc for people to criticize whatever they don't like. An encyclopedia is NOT the place for that.

Does that mean no article can have a criticism section? No, but there should be unusual, overwhelming and obvious reasons that justify straying beyond our main responsibility of documenting and describing the topic. To do otherwise threatens the scholarly impartiality, the legitimacy, and ultimately the very existence of any reference work. Joema 00:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article has a lot of good information, but it is not laid out to the best effect. I think a WikiProject Space Exploration needs to be created to attempt an organization of this subject matter. There should be brief sections regarding history, spacecraft, challenges, colonization, law, politics, commercial uses, etc...which redirect to the full articles. Space Exploration is way too huge a subject to be encapsulated in one article. --Exodio 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Time Out on reverts

Y'all have just hit 3 RR. And in looking back over the history, edits, and edit history comments, I don't have a clue what the dispute is about.

Please cease and desist article edits or reverts until you explain what the problem is, and why, here in the talk page...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

It is nonsence to say Nazi Germany launched the first object into space.--Nixer 11:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, what is this line about? "However, the first sub-orbital spaceflight was by a German V2 rocket in 1942." It comes out of nowhere in the article during a discussion of the USSR's advantage over the US in the space race between the two superpowers. I am deleting it. Rafajs77 (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to our article on the V-2, it regularly reached 80+ km altitude (supported by [2] [3]), and the article even says "the world's first ballistic missile and first human artifact to achieve sub-orbital spaceflight,". Sub-orbital spaceflight claims (unsourced - if we found a source for this it would be great!) that a test V-2 reached 189 km altitude, beyond any debate. I agree that there are some points to be clarified (the definition of "edge of space" (Kármàn line, US 50-mile line...), for instance), but it's looking like the V-2 was indeed the first sub-orbital object launched by humans.

(addendum) I think the way the article currently treats the V-2 is good and should be left as is. It's mentioned in the "history" section as the first suborbital launch. — QuantumEleven 08:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

request for peer review

There is a request for a peer review at List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

taikonaut

this seems to be a bogus claim of a first. taikonaut is merely a chinese word for spacewalker ...the first of whom was a soviet in 1965 Winkwink 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with spaceflight

Spaceflight has recently been changed from a redirect by chopping sections out of this page. And little else. It is so far needless duplication. Rmhermen 01:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Spaceflight is a general article about mechanical and technical aspects of astrodynamics, spacecraft propulsion, spacecraft, launch pads, spaceports, reentry, countdown, attitude control systems, guidance, life support and so forth. This is based on the dictionary definition of spaceflight: "the flying of manned or unmanned spacecraft into or in outer space" In other words it's about transportation.

Space exploration is a general article about exploring the solar system and other stellar systems, the effects of zero gravity on humans and other life, the effects of solar and cosmic radiation. In other words it's about exploration.

I do not see that there is any significant duplication. The spaceflight article is currently a stub/under construction and Rmherman's comment that it contains little is only somewhat accurate, and very much misplaced (you've got to start an article somewhere), and an examination of the sections so far in the article should show this.WolfKeeper 02:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

p.s. On the duplication front, I did take a couple of sections out of space exploration and moved them into spaceflight after determining that they were much more to do with spaceflight than exploration. Rhmerman deleted spaceflight out of hand and moved them back. I have resurrected spaceflight but there's currently those two sections duplicated; this is temporary only and I intend that this will be sorted out by making them distinct or deletion of one or other copy.WolfKeeper 02:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The separation of the articles was prompted by me trying to merge the categories Category:Space exploration and Category:Spaceflight, and Wolfkeeper believing they shouldn't be merged.. (you may want to comment on this as well). it appears that Spaceflight has been redirected to Space exploration since 2002 with no discussion; since they are different topics, as Wolfkeeper points out, i'm guessing they should have different articles. (after all, they even have different portals). Mlm42 08:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose to merge. Spaceflight, as noted, is a mechanical and technical subject, while space exploration is a vast field that encompasses many different issues. Barring some novel reason to merge them, I'll remove the notice later. Note that this page is on Wikipedia:Vital articles list. Marskell 14:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose for similar reasons to Marskell's. To expand on "space exploration ... many different issues": astronomical exploration; manned and unmanned; colonisation; arguments for and against all of these, including economic / political justification. Philcha (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections

Can we spin the timeline off or even merge it somewhere else? I've noticed a few redundant lists in this regard. We have both Timeline of the Space Race and List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969. Only the post '75 stuff seems unique here.

Also "Key people in early space exploration". Shouldn't we turn this into a regular prose chronology? Marskell 12:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of very similar lists of these things.. see, for example, the end of List of human spaceflights.. but in this article they should definitely be summarized in prose with links to appropriate lists and timelines. Mlm42 22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They "should definitely be summarized in prose with links to appropriate lists and timelines." Sorry, is that agreement or disagreement? Marskell 23:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

so, agreement, i believe. since the title of the article is Space exploration, i think it should be a general article with basically no lists.. the lists and timelines would be in other articles, and summarized in this one, in prose. sorry, i may have been ambiguous in my last post a little when referring to "this article". Mlm42 07:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

cont'd

Well, I've spun off the list. Now we need to do the hard work of merging stuff to avoid redundant lists. Marskell 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, that list has been in the article for almost two years. I thought for a long time about completing it because it was very US-biased. Then I finally got around to doing that and then in no time it gets removed. Well, the proposal was already here, but still, the timing is just 'perfect'. :) Anyway, I also thought that with those flags the table should really be in Space race. In stead it has been moved to a separate article, Timeline of space exploration. The discussion continues at Talk:List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969#Merge w/Timeline of the Space Race. This for the record. DirkvdM 10:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Benefits

I notice that there is quite a large section for criticisms of SPace Exploration, but not a section for Benefits, just a small mention in the opening paragraphs. Chuztox 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Space exploration

has anyone thought of the consequinces rocket blasts may have on the enviroment? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.25.255.246 (talk) 13:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

WE need to find out what is on the planet that we are living on before we explore the rest of the universe. Like what is in our oceans? 64.39.133.133 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

massive rewrite?

The vast majority of space exploration has involved unmanned space probes and yet the majority of this short article focuses on Manned spaceflight and on the Space Race. Both of those articles are in fact far more detailed than this one.

Would a massive re-write of the article perhaps including timelines of space exploration missions be welcome or is there some sort of consensus that the article should mostly focus on manned spaceflight and the space race? Zebulin 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such consensus, and expansion of the amount of discussion of robotic exploration would be very welcome. I'm not sure that 'massive rewrite' is called for though.WolfKeeper 23:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope we will eventually see the creation of a History of space exploration article. Creating that will help us all see what's missing from this article -- which is a lot! The article should discuss how sub-orbital spaceflights (i.e. sounding rockets) have been and still are used to better understand near-Earth space. It should explicitly address the tension between robotic exploration and human exploration, discussing pros and cons of each. It should discuss how near-Earth astronomical observatories have aided scientific understanding of far-distant (and far-back in time) parts of space. It should mention how exploration has (at least in the case of Earth-orbital space) led to economic exploitation of space. As for timelines of space exploration missions, is Timeline of space exploration an OK place for that? If not, maybe one of the articles shown on {{Space exploration lists and timelines}} fits the bill? (sdsds - talk) 01:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline material that was here was cut out back in December and put into one or more of the too-many already existing timeline articles. Rmhermen 20:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You could move it back again, or if you're really daring transclude it both here as well as the timeline article; that way there would be a single copy but appear in both places. Just a thought.WolfKeeper 21:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How does manned space exploration returned to earth?

Discoveries

I've added a section on the discoveries made from Space Exploration, it needs considerably expanding.WolfKeeper 10:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

that's something of a can of worms. Even at the coarse level of detail of the discoveries currently mentioned the article would require pages and pages to include all of the notable discoveries.Zebulin 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. To some extent it's called writing an encyclopedia though. However, in many cases we would be able to link to other parts of the wikipedia so it's not going to be as bad as you think; we have control over what goes here and not. The current article had a big hole where this went.WolfKeeper 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Self-contradictory first sentence

The first sentence of the current revision of the article reads:

Space exploration is the use of astronomy and space technology to physically explore outer space, with both human spaceflight and robotic spacecraft.

This is essentially self-contradictory: astronomy is not a technique that "physically" explores outer space, nor is it necessarily done with either human spaceflight or robotic spacecraft. (The cited reference makes it clear at least one author at NASA considers ancient ground-based astronomy to be space exploration.) (sdsds - talk) 20:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'd prefer to define space exploration as visiting / flying near with manned or robotic spacecraft spacecraft, and point out just as a note that exploration and astronomy assist each other. Philcha (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if people were thinking of space telescopes like hubble when they wrote that part.Zebulin (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The cited reference from NASA, "How Space is Explored", is very clear:

Space was explored as early as the fourth century BCE, through ancient astronomy.

(Personally I wish we could find a reference just as reliable to cite that doesn't include astronomy as a part of space exploration!) I've now tried to rework the lead sentences to (at least) make the intro self-consistent.... (sdsds - talk) 15:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Given the relative vastness of Space Exploration, I think we need to consider this article to be an top level/jumping off point/index to the other significant articles in the wikipedia, and the article structure should reflect that. So this implies that we need to very, very briefly summarise the issues and then link out to the main article on that topic in each section.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The article needs more diagrams.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I started to comment on the "Merge with spaceflight" & Discussion sections above, but I guess this goes better here. It may have a disjointed quality; sorry. I agreed to oppose the merge at stake there, I think, as the overarching subject is so huge that it would seem a mistake to throw things together without being very very careful not to get a bloated mess. This discussion has lain fallow for quite a while, and I see a lot of work has been done lately, possibly making much of this moot. But a large number of possible organizational fault lines come to mind:

* Temporal: "historical" vs "current technology and state-of-the-art";

* Political: "global" vs "national" programs;

* Robotic role: "unmanned" vs "human";

* Rationale: "projection of national power" vs "purely scientific" vs "human exploration" vs "human habitation" with criticisms on basis of cost, risk, values, priorities, and also arguments in favor both, responding to criticism and standing on their own merits, etc, etc on both sides;

* Articles on or mentioning specific missions, people, programs, vehicles, celestial bodies, astronomical classes (eg, planetology, astrobiology, SETI....)

* Factual material vs fiction and literature, futurism, philosophy, etc, etc.

Ie, -- it just goes on and on. Clearly the overlap among these is so big that trying to do anything comprehensive in every possible logical subdivision would result in a huge amount of duplication and probably some inconsistency among articles as well. I am new enough to editing Wiki that I can hardly comment intelligently on the structure of Wiki portals, categories, and articles, whereas I see many old-timers like Wolfkeeper and Sdsds probably struggling to maintain some coherent organization in the face of "ducks" like me pecking here and there. A partial answer must surely be to lay out early and clearly the scope of each major article, with links to other possible interpretations of the subject matter.

That said, I think Wolfkeeper's division into Space exploration and Spaceflight seems sensible as a tectonic "plate boundary", with the latter focusing on the mechanical and technical -- means, and the former more of ends than means: science and exploration, the expansion of knowledge (whether robotic or human), the intrinsic value (or lack thereof) of human expansion off the Earth. I have a feeling that historical material about missions, programs, nations, and people involved might well be split off with just good tight summaries and links to more comprehensive expositions as stand-alone articles. I wish we had more on astrodynamics and orbital mechanics, though I suppose such articles mostly exist and just need to be summarized and linked. Similarly a section listing the major programs -- eg, Explorer, Mercury, Ranger, Mariner, Gemini, Apollo, etc, for the US, Vostok, Cosmos, etc for Russia, might make sense. This is hard because they are a heterogeneous lot, and a lot of stand-alone missions don't fit neatly into programs (and some programs are not even publically acknowleged, alas).

I think the criticism and and support sections might well be made subsections of one combined section on "Rationale", possibly to be exported to a more expansive external discussion covering the pros and cons. It seems to me that the challenge here is to maintain overall neutral POV so that the subject is treated fairly, in the face of strong opinions many of us surely have, which is why I think they should go in one section to make their inseparable connection clear. Logically, I guess I think the pro's should come first, as it seems a little strange to attack a thesis before it has been explicitly stated, but either is OK. (I confess myself to be essentially a fanatic "pro" at heart, but committed to support NPOV, with help I hope from strong critics, to keep the overall treatment honest. It would be a pity -- besides Wiki-unacceptable -- to have this subject be treated in a biasedly pro way, but I fear that is a danger since enthusiasts are likely to be more energized and drawn here more than critics.)

I have merged the "Criticisms" & "Support" sections into one "Rationale" section, with "In Favor" and "Opposed" as subsections, per above & hearing no objections. I moved the tags to encompass both, though I found them only on the criticisms section, partly to be neutral and partly because I am not yet familiar with tagging operations. If they really do not apply to the in-favor subsection, someone could move them back down to cover only "opposed". Bill Wwheaton (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, I hope everyone will think about what the best natural divisions really are beyond my thoughts above, if you have not already done so. Thanks to all those who have done so much work, you know who you are. Wwheaton (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Venera 9 panorama.gif

Image:Venera 9 panorama.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been more lander missions to venus than any other celestial body and yet without this picture there will be no representation of that vast effort. There does not appear to be any alternative image available.Zebulin (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale (In favor)

I have made a cut at classifying reasons for supporting space exploration, along an axis of "practicality", which is to say I am thinking of certainty and near- vs far-term relevance. My hope is to prevent the section from just breaking up into scattered and disordered comments, but I have little idea about how to organize the section beyond that--whether the rationales should just all follow the listing of reasons as a kind of introductory header, or whether each class of reasons should be filled in within its own sub-sub-section. I would be very grateful for discussion and suggestions about how this might be done. There also may be other axes of organization than the one I have chosen, so proposals about that are especially valuable before this goes too far in what may be the wrong direction.

Also, there are probably significant reasons for being opposed to space exploration that are not just the contradictions of the kinds of pro-space reasons I have listed. I do not mean to limit the text to just pro & con on the issues I have mentioned. If it turns out after a while that the the arguments do mostly fall out in that way, then we might consider moving the classification list out of the "In favor" subsection up to become a header for the whole "Rationale" section, but that seems premature to me at the moment, until there has been more comment on both sides.

I have put an "under construction" template in temporarily, as there need to be references for each type of rationale, regardless of the axis. Don't want to get reverted too quick on that account. I have a few refs in mind, but I'm sure others will have many more good ones. Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still working (slowly) on this section. My thought of the moment is to try and sort the "pro" arguments out, underneath my (still) tentative categorization, so as to group them in the corresponding order. Wwheaton (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've removed nearly all of it. This kind of section has to be 100% referenced. Feel free to put anything back, provided it's referenced.14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

spacing of pictures

After this edit [4] by the smackbot which removed blocks of spacing the images in the article no longer line up with the celestial body subsections. Is it possible to control the spacing in such a way that bots like smackbot won't reverse the changes leaving the text bunched up without regard to the placement of the relevant images?Zebulin (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Laika.jpg

The image Image:Laika.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

space race

they were always looking for new ways to impress each other but the other just coming with new ways the soviets were first then the USA and that is basically it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.41.12 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Suborbital space flight

Should the Nazi-lounched rockets be considered 'space rockets'? According Russian definithion of spaceflight, it can only be orbital.--MathFacts (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't use a Russian definition. We use the historical definition (the Nazis considered it to be in space), the U.S. mid-20th century definition (over 50 miles) and the FAI definition (Kármán line, 62 miles/100km) - each where appropriate. Do you have a source for the Russian definition? Rmhermen (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lunar exploration

I think we need a special section about Lunar exploration and the manned Moon landings.--MathFacts (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Exploration of the Moon 87.120.43.76 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Space exploration/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

; Space exploration with sub-orbital sounding rockets The history section should include discussion of sub-orbital sounding rockets used for early space exploration. For example, Viking rockets were used to examine the solar spectrum from outside the atmosphere. (sdsds - talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Putting Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, et al. on the same plane as Hermann Oberth shows a lack of historical perspective. Tsiolkovsky may have inspired some, but he didn't build rockets. Goddard flew the first liquid fueled rocket, but his major later engineering accomplishment was rockets for the U.S. Navy. Oberth's work in the 1920s, on the other hand, laid both the scientific and technological basis for space rocketry. One can draw a straight line between Oberth's work, and both Von Braun's early 1930s amateurs and the Soviet GIRD of Sergei Korolev, and then from them on to modern spaceflight. Oberth deserves much more prominence in the history of space flight, and his contribution easily outshines either Tsiolkovsky or Goddard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip Wynn (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)