Talk:Space Race

Did the Soviet win the Space Race

Professor Jennifer Frost opine that they did but I think the argument they made is hugely flawed and should be removed. Nguyen280405 (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Professor Frost is providing balance to the opinion from American political scientist Richard Samuels that the space race was a "decisive American victory". I believe the two comments read together provide a reasonable NPOV. Also note the comments in the FAQ section above “Shouldn't this article say that the Soviet Union or the United States won the space race?” which concludes with “In essence, the space "race" concluded with a "tie," as both nations achieved feats of technological mastery and exploration that significantly improved humanity's understanding of the cosmos.”. I would be ok to add this, or similar wording to the article.Ilenart626 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/watch?si=qWG8z7WmeZqkfmIY&v=rSK7rUSnFK4

If this does not convince you that I am right, I have nothing else. Nguyen280405 (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying that a utube video by “DeadKennedyInSpace” is a reliable source? What about his other videos, ie “How Flat Earth Uses deception”? “The Day the Internet Failed the Sarcasm Test”? What about “The next level of (stupid) parts 1 to 5”Ilenart626 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I am showing you why I think the source is flawed.Besides, those videos, though they can't be considered "reliable", are still insightful Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you enter Timeline of the Space Race, you can see that the achievements of the US are more meaningful than the Soviet's Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

and why do you talk like those videos are nonsense? They are actually pretty in-depth. Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Her argument is not factual, so how can that be counterbalance Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Frost is, according to her page, "a United States women's historian, focused on social, cultural, and political developments in the twentieth-century United States". She's not a space historian, nor a specialist in USSR space program or even USSR in general. I don't think that it's a 'balanced view' of a specialist. Artem.G (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This arguement equally applies to Richard Samuels as his website states that he is a “Professor of Political Science” and is not a space historian, nor a specialist in the USSR space program or even the USSR in general. So should we remove his statement that the space race was a "decisive American victory"? Ilenart626 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you think my edit is correct, just do what you think is right to do Nguyen280405 (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You do realise this subject has been extensively discussed in the past. Suggest you search the archives to understand the history behind the FAQ above. Ilenart626 (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

the Faq is about german influence, why do you tell me to read that Nguyen280405 (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

my mistake, let me say again.Like I said, American achievements are overall more meaningful than the Soviet's, as you can see in the timeline;therefore, theUS overall had an edge overthe Soviet Union in the "race". Nguyen280405 (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So that we are clear on “meaningful” the Cambridge dictionary defines it a “useful, serious, valuable or inportant”. Looking at the Timeline of the Space Race, for the Soviets, a sample of 10 include:

• Sputnik - 1st satelite
• Luna 2 - 1st spacecraft moon landing
• Luna 3 - 1st photos of far side of the Moon
• Yuri Gagarin - 1st man in space
• Valentina Tereshkova - first woman in space
• Mars 1 - 1st Mars flyby
• Venera 3 - First hard landing on another planet (Venus)
• Soyuz 4/5 - First docking of two manned spacecraft
• Venera 7 - First soft landing on another planet (Venus)
• MIR - First consistently inhabited long-term research space station.

Looking at the US list a sample of 10 include:

• Vanguard 1 - First solar-powered satellie
• Mariner 2 - First successful planetary flyby mission (Venus)
• Syncom 2 - First geosynchronous satellite
• Apollo 8 - First return to Earth after orbiting the Moon
• Gemini 8/aTV - First spacecraft docking
• Apollo 11 - First humans on the Moon
• Mariner 9 - First spacecraft to orbit another planet (Mars)
• STS1 - First spaceplane in orbit, the Space Shuttle (test flight)
• Pioneer 11 - First Saturn flyby
• Voyager 2 - First Uranus flyby.

Nguyen280405, can you please explain to me how the above US list is more “meaningful” (ie useful, serious, valuable or inportant) than the Soviet list? For example:

1. How is “First humans on the Moon” more meaningful than “first man in space”?
2. How is “First spaceplane in orbit” more meaningful than “ First consistently inhabited long-term research space station”?
3. How is the “First Saturn flyby” more meaningful than the “first Mars flyby”
4. How is the “First geosynchronous satellite” more meaningful than the “first satelite”?

Ilenart626 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1.The US only need a few month to catch up.

3.The US conducted first successful Mars flyby.

4.The US lauched the first truly useful satelite. Nguyen280405 (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

1I am sorry, a few week. Nguyen280405 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

sorry but you a comparing a sub-orbital ballistic flight to an orbital flight, which was also second and therefore not relevant / not on the timeline. Ilenart626 (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it without completely removing the source. But it's an undue weight given to a single opinion of non-specialist, so I would agree with its removal for a better source. Artem.G (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Artem.G the "decisive American victory" is also only supported by a single opinion of a non-specialist, so is’nt this also been given undue weight and should be trimmed / removed for a better source? Ilenart626 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you want a reference from a space historian, how about Asif A. Siddiqi, this is from a statement he made in 2023

”Because the United States first made it to the Moon, they are widely assumed to have won that space race, but Siddiqi suggests otherwise. “Before that landing, there was an enormous amount of investment in the robotic exploration of the Moon, both by the Soviets and the US, in terms of all sorts of smaller benchmarks like the first lunar impact, the first pictures of the far side of the Moon, the first soft lunar landing, and the first lunar orbit. We forget, but in those little races, the Soviet Union dominated almost every benchmark, but it is forgotten as the United States won the big one.”

Ilenart626 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Added! Artem.G (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

then let's remove this as well! These quotes oversimplify the history. Siddiqi is a much better source that should be used instead. Artem.G (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, have trimmed the lead, fixed a broken link and added Siddiqi to the Lead. Perhaps we could summarise the Lead even more, say who won is contested by historian’s and include a summary of what Siddiqi said? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to actually define dates for the Space Race in the lead. Also, I appreciate Asif's quote:

"Because the United States first made it to the Moon, they are widely assumed to have won that space race, but Siddiqi suggests otherwise. “Before that landing, there was an enormous amount of investment in the robotic exploration of the Moon, both by the Soviets and the US, in terms of all sorts of smaller benchmarks like the first lunar impact, the first pictures of the far side of the Moon, the first soft lunar landing, and the first lunar orbit. We forget, but in those little races, the Soviet Union dominated almost every benchmark, but it is forgotten as the United States won the big one.”

That said, by any measure, the United States took the lead in any Space Race you want to mention by 1965, and it never really ceded it. Source: me, a space historian. :) Anyway, I know this isn't an internet forum, and again, I think the lead is fine (though dates would be a good addition), but don't kid yourself. It was a clear American victory in accomplishments, which was inevitable—we had far more money to spend. --Neopeius (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The Space Race was predominantly a propaganda victory. No one disputes that the Soviets also made significant advances in space exploration.

Minority views should be it in the article. But saying that the Soviets "tied" or "beat" the United States in the Space Race (in popular consciousness) is not one of those. KlayCax (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The consensus for current Lead was reached after considerable discussion, as detailed above. If you want to propose changes please do so on the Talk page and follow WP:MOSLEAD, in other words, the Lead needs to summarise the conclusion in the Legacy section. Ilenart626 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Page titles

Right now, the article is structured chronologically, with titles such as "Disaster strikes both sides" and "Both programs recover". Is this proper formatting? This seems more like a story than separate sections about a topic. Maybe this should be a series? WikiFloath (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Exploration of Venus

hey, Terrainman! I agree that section on Venus is needed, but I think you should trim and tone it down a bit. Currently, it's just a list of bulletpoints condensed from the Exploration of Venus article. You ignored Pioneer Venus Orbiter, but listed every single Soviet mission of the Venera program, all 14 of them! You also ignored Magellan (spacecraft), that was launched before the collapse of the USSR. This article is not about the Venera program, and not about the exploration of Venus, so I don't think it needs a description of every Soviet Venus mission.

Regarding "however", please read WP:HOWEVER.

The US never caught up or matched the Soviet efforts to explore Venus, but did claim the title of the first successful probe to have flew by her. - this is not a NPOV, please read WP:NPOV. Artem.G (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I will shorten the segment to only first firsts in the exploration of Venus. Honestly I was only thinking about pre moon landing exploration and didn't think to include Pioneer Venus. I understand NPOV, and I disagree that this sentence violates it. Please suggest a reworded version? It is clear that the soviets invested most more in the exploration of venus than the US and put several landers on the surface (againist no Nasa landers). 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Further more, WP:HOWEVER also lists 'but' in the same list of words to watch. Which is what however was changed to. "Words to watch: but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, while ..." 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I have shortened the segment. I removed every soviet mission which was not significant (such as being a first in space exploration) but included NASA missions which were not significant (did not signify a first), in the interest of giving perspective as to what NASA were doing for Venus exploration at the time. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Distinction between Moon race and the space race as a whole

I think there needs to be more clarity in the article with regard to the moon race, since often the moon race aspect of the space race is spoken of as if it were the space race itself and not a part of it. This is particularly present in the lead and 'legacy' section, as well as some other segements. The third paragraph of the lead is specifically talking about the moon missions of the Soviets and US, but talks about it as if it were talking about the space race holistically. This needs to be adjusted I believe. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Race/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Terrainman (talk · contribs) 14:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

With all respect to the nominator, who is clearly intent on improving this article, it does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Literally at the time it was nominated, it contained eleven {{cn}} tags. It's down to six now, three days later, but in my opinion intentionally nominating something that's got that many clearly-flagged issues and expecting a full review is just disrespectful to the entire GA process. Some of those tags are attached to entire unsourced paragraphs! It's just not on. On top of that, the article is clearly not stable, as major revisions are still underway, and on top of that there's an apparent editing dispute over image placement. Please only renominate this when it is complete, properly referenced, and stable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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