Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cold War (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Unluckiest group?[edit]

Can anyone verify the statement that four of the nine died in training accidents? It doesn't seem to match up. - JM

The following text has been deleted, since it is incorrect; of Group 2, only Elliott See died in a training accident. White died in the Apollo 1 fire; Pete Conrad died a few years back following a motorcycle accident. The other six are, at the time of this writing (27.7.05) still alive. I believe the reference is to Astronaut Group 3. In any case, references to "luck" or the lack thereof seem out of place in this type of article. - RandomCritic


The Next Nine was a notoriously unlucky group, as four of the
nine recruits died in training accidents.

Thanks for the fix, RandomCritic. - JM

Merge[edit]

There has been no comments on whether or not to merge these pages, so unless someone has some objection I will redirect the New Nine article to this one. JM 23:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes re-direct. I never heard use of the 'New Nine' tag for Group 2 any way.

There is some evidence referenced in A. Smith's 'Moondust' and depicted in the series 'From the Earth to the Moon' that the reason group 2 stands out by comparison to group 1 was that a number of the group had passed on the first NASA call as they did not want to be just 'spam in the can' so arguably this group really was 'the best of the best'.

I have merged the topics, but the format (by which I mean appearance) of the page isn't very easy to read (for me at least). Can anyone suggest a better way to organize the information? -Jokermage 19:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Best class opinion?[edit]

There is a quote by Michael Collins in his book that this was, in his opinion, the best astronaut class, better than the original 7 or the ones that followed (including his own class, the third picked). Worth including?DrBear (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First to exchange crews?[edit]

I removed: "Commander, first mission to dock two manned spacecraft in Earth orbit and exchange crews. " from Jim McDivitt. Soyuz 4 and Soyuz 5 did it a couple of months earlier. Might could say something else, such as commanded the first mission to test the Lunar Module. Bubba73 (talk), 02:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, they were docked, but did an EVA to transfer to the other spacecraft. Apollo 9 was the first to do it without going outside. Perhaps it could be phrased that way?? Bubba73 (talk), 02:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Astronaut Chart[edit]

The chart linked on this page (and other pages) is the most convoluted thing I've ever seen. A chart should be easy to understand and you shouldn't put every tiny piece of information you can think of in it. It clutters it up and makes people not want to use it at all. The small preview pic will dissuade people from wanting to find out more except as a curiosity: "Why would someone make a chart like this, I've got to check this out". 72.177.54.190 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)