Talk:List of spaceflight records
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] old
Hi! is the following the longest distance ever done by a human???
Longest human single flight
* Valeri Polyakov, launched 8 January 1994 (Soyuz TM-18), stayed at Mir LD-4 for 437.7 days, during which he orbited the earth about 7,075 times and traveled 300,765,000 km, (about 186,887,000 miles, or .0000318 light years) returned March 22, 1995 (Soyuz TM-20).
Which had the highest altitude apart from the ones to the Moon? Were they all LEO?--Patrick 23:07, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
IMHO, the first "records" for the Americans do not feel as records, as they concern suborbital flights. Only the first winged suborbital flight does is a real record. The first american woman in space also IMHO does not constitute a real record, but a milestone. For NASA, that is. Also: no record for the longest individual stay in space, or the first stay for over a year. I know the Russians have done it, just not when or who. Letting every Skylab mission have its own record is also somewhat US-centric. Or perhaps make an seperate list of manned mission duration records?
- This page uses tyhe international definition of space so sub-orbital flights are valid. Also the longest spaceflight is the very first item on the page. The first flight over 1 year is clearly marked in 1988, the Skylab missions are just as valid duration records as the Salyut flights which follow them on the list. The first American woman in space is mentioned in the same entry as the record for the first five person spaceflight so it isn't much of a stretch to mention the other fact as well. Rmhermen 15:24, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
I am missing the first space station to space station flight, from Salyut 7 to Mir! Someone has details on this?
- It is in there - see 1985 in the list of firsts. Rmhermen 02:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slashdot almost has news on new record - almot there
[1] - soon it may be time for an update –Gnomz007(?) 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Two thirteen-man firsts?
The "Human spaceflight firsts" table lists two separate "Thirteen people in space: No docking" firsts. One in 1995, then two rows below in 1997. Initially I thought one of them was supposed to be docking or had a different amount of people, but I checked the shuttle mission description and found that neither docked with Mir. Should the latter one be deleted from the table? Cardinal2 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the second. Rmhermen 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions for more "firsts"
I've just corrected the year for the first station-to-station space flight (Mir to Salyut 7 back to Mir, May-June 1986). I have a few suggestions for some other "firsts" which go beyond what I see here - a lot of "seven people/eight/nine" which is kinda tedious. There are a lot of interesting Soviet firsts: How about -
first crew transfer - Alexei Yeliseyev and Yevgeni Khrunov - launched in Soyuz 5, landed in Soyuz 4, Jan 17 1969. First to die in space (not a nice category, but it's a signifigant one): The crew of Soyuz 11, June 29, 1971 (They remain ONLY people to die in space, all others died either during launch or upon re-entry below 100km) First Manned Space Abort - Soyuz 18-1, April 5 1975. Third stage failed, Soyuz capsule was ejected and crew safely landed. First visit to an orbiting space station crew; First non-Soviet, non-American astronaut - Soyuz 27 crew visits Soyuz 26 crew orbiting in Salyut 6; Czechoslvakian Vladimir Remek first nonSov non USA astronaut, Jan 1978 First space station crew transfer - Soyuz-T 14 docks at Salyut 7, two crew members swapped for one member of Soyuz-T 13 crew, Sept 1985 First complete space station crew exchange - Soyuz-TM 9 crew replaces Soyuz-TM 10 crew from Mir, Feb 1990. Canada Jack 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- You are certainly free to add items. First visit to an orbiting space station crew wasn't immediately obvious since the first space station was years earlier - maybe rephrase or skip. First complete space station crew exchange seems either unclear or too late. Rmhermen 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The ability for multiple crews to dock at a space station wasn't available until the launch of Salyut 6 in 1977, as that was the first station with multiple docking ports. (Skylab had two ports but the second one was an emergency-use one and never used)
As for the part about the first crew exchange not until 1990, the Soviets started sending multiple crews to stations in 1978, but these were always visiting crews and not replacement crews. The first crew "transfer" at a space station - where one or more crew from an arriving craft exchange places with one or more crew from the station craft - but no complete swap - occured during the 1985 Salyut 7 re-activiation mission. Mir regularily had crews exchanging once permanent occupation commenced in 1987 (with a gap in 1989), but initially always with a guest cosmonaut who would stay only for the exchange phase of the mission. I admit it is a bit confusing - perhaps I should go with the first crew exchange from 1987. I'll insert these new "firsts" and see how it goes over. Canada Jack 18:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I notice that my "Skylab2/Skylab" changes were reverted. I'm not going to debate the naming conventions here as I've not contributed much to these space pages, but is there a particular style when it comes to Skylab or space stations in general? I've noticed that when it comes to ISS, Nasa has instituted a mission numbering system entirely divorced from the launch vehicles in question and it seems they have done something similar - Nasa that is - in naming Mir's missions and previously. I'm never sure if we should refer to those "mission" designations - Mir EO6 or what have you - or to the launch vehicles that take the crews there and back. Quite a few of those Mir flights had mixed crews in terms of when they arrived, sometimes a crew of three arriving all separately making a single "mission" somewhat arbritary. When it comes to Skylab, I detect even more confusion as "Skylab 2" for example, refers BOTH to the launch vehicle AND the mission itself. To be more consistent, I thought it made sense to make the distinction between the mission and the vehicle - and note that in saying "Skylab 2 docked to Skylab." I only did this because it made sense to me to do likewise with the first space station - Soyuz 11 docked with Salyut 1 - etc. Again, I'm not going to debate the wisdom of this - I can see, I think, the reasons for reverting here. I was just unsure of the style here in terms of mission designation. Cheers. Canada Jack 15:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually you put Skylab 2 at Skylab 1 which reads as an impossibility as Skylab 1 is used to designate the launch mission of the unmanned Skylab module. Skylab 1 was unfortunately also used to differentiate the module from Skylab 2 module which was in planning but never happened. Rmhermen 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Might have been better to say "skylab 2 at skylab" eh? Do you think it makes sense omitting the "1"? Canada Jack 15:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why years and not dates for "firsts"?
In the "firsts" section, why do we only have years and not dates? Dates are present in the "notable unmanned spaceflights" section. Seems to me that in most cases a date or date range is appropriate and easily inserted. In some cases there may not be a discreet date, but that can be accomodated by a less-specific date like "Dec. 1987." I'll go ahead and add dates but not before I hear from others here who may have objections or voice reasons why dates should not be in this section. Canada Jack 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- 'Cause someone started it that way? I think the human first section was organized before the other. Would full dates make the astronaut names wrap to much? Rmhermen 16:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me try and see - if it looks like crap, we can always revert. Canada Jack 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've done it, managed to date just about everything and clean up a few errors while I was at it. There were several "first four months" or what have you which were in fact in error - they hadn't accumulated the appropriate time so I fixed the claimed time. However, one will have to be changed - the first crew to spend two weeks in space were not Borman and Lovell in 1965 but Nikolayev and Sevastyanov in 1970, so I'll fix that. Also, Bykovsky's longest solo flight is not a "first" but more properly a record, so that needs a fix as well. Canada Jack 19:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Longest time on lunar surface
When calling out the duration "74h 60m", wouldn't it be a bit more elegant to simply say "75h"'? Beefcalf
[edit] alan shepard
Can someone explain how Yuri Gagarin is supposed to have gotten to orbit without being suborbital first????? This is left over cruft from an antique propaganda war which is unnecessary to perpetuate. His record, whatever it may be, is not a Human space first. Whatever he did on that flight was done before him, attributing a "first" just because he didn't do something else as well is a trite ploy. An indelicate analogy would be-- he was the first person to get to third base with Betty Sue without actually scoring after someone else already had...68.60.68.203 19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Making a 15 minute sub-orbital flight after Gagarin's 100 minute orbital flight isn't much of a "first". However, since Gagarin didn't land inside his returning spacecraft and Shepherd did, I've updated the Shepherd entry to reflect that "first". Rillian 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- I truly appreciate that, that is a big step in the right direction. It is at least technically correct( as in "gets off" on a technicality). I won't try to push it further, but I want to make one last comment. I do think that this is an artificial category (there is no corresponding category for people who went to space and did not land "within" their spacecraft, nor should there be, Yuri Gagarin went to space and landed, end of story.). The Shepard flight, frankly, is a sacred cow that will always require some kind of Shibboleth to maintain its status. 68.60.68.203 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] first artificial gravity by use of a rotating tether
I found this rather interesting: on space.edu/projects/book/chapter15.html
GEMINI 11 "On the flight's second day, Gordon performed an EVA and attached a 100-foot dacron rope between the Agena and the Gemini 11 vehicle to determine what would happen after the vehicles undocked. Conrad undocked, stabilized the vehicle and then performed a small burn to create a rotating moment to the configuration; this created artificial gravity by use of a rotating tether another first for the space program."68.60.68.203 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] People in orbit 3 weeks not given
I think, if correct, the ill-fated Soyuz 11 crew deserves to be recognized for this. 23 days, 18 h, 21 min, 43 s give or take the 15 minutes they were dead.68.60.68.203 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] more firsts
9 months Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov, Oleg Atkov Salyut 7 EO-3 February 8, 1984 October 2, 1984 236.95 days
Salyut 7 itself was occupied for 816 days surely a worthy first there.
salute 6 683 days ?
3,4,5,6,7,8,9.10 year occupation marks for mir (make it one entry)
First three-person spacewalk Thuot, Hieb & Thomas Akers STS-49 - EVA 3 May 13, 1992,68.60.68.203 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] entry for two spaceflights ,two orbital spaceflights. 7 spaceflights
so who was first to do 3 4 5 and 6 if this is a category
As this is to be about humans achieving spaceflight records -I think there are really only two kinds of humans that are recognized for "human" achievement record purposes, Male and Female. If there is entry for "first to complete four spacewalks during the same mission", then there should be no entry for "first to make four spacewalks during the same Shuttle mission", it is no first at all. Also same problem as before, who was first to do 2, and 3 on same mission.68.60.68.203 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to add first person to make 3, 4, 5, and 6 flights. And/or be bold and remove the entry from the Firsts table since it's covered in the Most section. Rillian 13:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Person to fly four different types of spacecraft
another "orphan" catagory68.60.68.203 02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- So be bold and add first person to fly two different types of spacecraft (Gordon Cooper?) and first person to to fly three types. Rillian 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disagreement in totals
Khazakstan is not represented in the countries by total time in space (and graph). It might be included in the Russian/Soviet total but we have no source listed to confirm if that is true. Khazakstan should be number six. Rmhermen 14:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Loos like it's been moved --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Spaceflight records → List of spaceflight records — WP:NC and WP:SAL state that list titles shoud be "list of...". Seeing as this appears to be a list, it should follow this pattern —GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
[edit] Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit] Tagged for lacking sources?
Problem #1 with Wikipedia is that there are too many pedantic professional nitpickers trolling pages to place these messages across the top. Click through a few random articles and you will see what I mean - but almost everything on this particluar article is easily verified through the website of NASA, for example, or Encyclopedia Astronautica. A number of the entries on this lists of this page are general knowledge, for heaven's sake. Darcyj (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Citations to general knowledge don't get you to featured lists, and violate WP:V. I would hope that everything could be cited in some way eventually, but right now we really need citations for the specific record claims most of all. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)