Talk:Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSpaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight List‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Copyright Permission to modify and distribute this and other timelines originally developed by Niel Brandt have been granted to wikipedia. See Talk:Timeline of transportation technology

Should this be combined with Timeline of planetary exploration? Rmhermen 15:12, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)


The official list of Artificial Satellites dont have to include CubeSat because according to the clasification of Satellites, CubeSat can be consider as Pico or Nano Satellite. If we include one CubeSat, then we have to include all the CubeSats so the list will be enormous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coverage of international achievements[edit]

This article only offers coverage of progress made by the United States and the Soviet Union (later Russia). In my opinion, the article should be expanded to include satellites launched by other countries. What do you think? --Ramsobol 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Luna 1 Success?[edit]

I understood from articles here and elsewhere, Luna 1 was an impactor that failed in its mission, although it did achieve orbit aorund the moon. 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC) JohnSReply[reply]

New style?[edit]

I think this list could be improved if it was replaced with a table (see Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their natural satellites). Below is one example (without probes images). Background color denotes the target. Comments?

Same applies to other spacecraft lists.

--Jyril 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1957 Soviet Union Sputnik 1 satellite Success first Earth orbiting satellite
1957 Soviet Union Sputnik 2 satellite Partial success first Earth orbiting satellite with an animal (Laika)
1958 United States Explorer 1 satellite Success
1958 United States Vanguard 1 satellite Success
1958 United States Pioneer 0 orbiter Failure
1958 United States Pioneer 1 orbiter Failure
1958 United States Pioneer 3 flyby Failure
1959 Soviet Union Luna 1 flyby Success discovered solar wind
1959 United States Pioneer 4 flyby
1959 Soviet Union Luna 2 impactor Success first spacecraft to impact onto the surface of the Moon
1959 Soviet Union Luna 3 flyby Success returned first images of the Moon's far side
I like the general idea. However, the flags are too big and attention grabbing. This is not the medal count of the Olympics, so just the names of the countries should suffice, IMHO. Awolf002 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
During the space race, it was a contest. ;) The reason why I added the flags was more of aesthetics than information. I don't think I'll have much time to improve it, but I hope somebody willing develops it further.--Jyril 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

early manned flights missing[edit]

At first I thought this list only included unmanned satellites, but then I saw it covered the Apollo missions which are manned. Therefore there are some big gaps in the list, we need to add the main flights of Vostok, Mercury, Voskhod, Gemini, Soyuz and Shenzou, amongst others.Charles 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am reworking this incomplete list. I have added an explanation of the list's criteria to the lead and am reworking the list to fit exactly what it mostly followed before. I removed the few manned flights, and some random Earth-observing satellites. I am trying to keep only the first satellites from each country, under the technology demonstrator reasoning, if they don't otherwise fit the criteria. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Galileo a Failure?[edit]

Galileo should not be classified as a failure. It explored the jovian system for eight years, sending back new data and fantastic images of all four Galilean satellites and the planet and its rings. The spacecraft had a nominal mission of two years which it exceeded by 400%. The astmospheric probe survived longer than expected (to a depth of 91 miles). It also made the first fly-by of an asteroid (actually two) and witnessed a comet crashing into the Jupiter as it approached. The only "failure" was of the high-gain antenna, a problem which was solved by reprogramming the use of the low-gain antenna. By all counts, this mission was a resounding success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The big obstacle/drawback of the Galileo probe was in the failure of its deployable "big dish" antenna. This implied the use of the back-up low-gain antenna, one that provided a MUCH lower data rate than was planned for Galileo. That antenna was intended only for sending and receiving low bitrate engineering commands and data.
I believe that the big failure was that (no matter what), that antenna should have been deployed, alongside the Space Shuttle, before "the candle was lit", and the space probe was sent on its trajectory towards Jupiter. Yes, there might have been a risk of damage to the dish antenna while the space probe was flying in the heat near Venus. As we know, the chance should have been taken.
Galileo went via a trajectory called VEEGA = Venus, Earth, Earth gravity assist. On the other hand, the Cassini-Huygens probe used VVEGA = Venus, Venus, Earth gravity assist, plus a (rather slow) flyby of Jupiter - to get all the way to Saturn, but slowly enough to allow the probes to be captured by Saturn. (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some other space probes went by Jupiter very fast because their destiny was to leave the Solar System. (Note: only American probes.) These included Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, and New Horizons (whose first goal was Pluto). Furthermore, IF Galileo had ben able to depart in 1982, the alignment was for it to flyby MARS to get a boost on its way to Jupiter. The launches of Galileo for 1982, 1984, 1985, and 1986 were all canceled due to problems with the Space Shuttle. (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)-Reply[reply]

Partial success/partial failure ?[edit]

Which phrase are we using? One or the other.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]