Contents

Talk:Soyuz 11

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soyuz 11 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2004, June 30, 2005, June 30, 2006, June 30, 2007, June 30, 2011, June 30, 2013, and June 29, 2021.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Mid‑importance 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education / History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

It is requested that an imageorphotographofthe monument, or at least the site of the monument if it has indeed been destroyed, to give an indication of the landscape therebeincluded in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Kazakhstan may be able to help! The Free Image Search ToolorOpenverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I've found a novel that involves Soyuz 11. It's a late 70's thriller entitled The Soyuz Affair by Stephen Coulter. The plotline is standard post-Watergate, eg US journalist uncovers evidence of US Govt shenanigans and has to flee for his life. In this case what he finds is a tape that supposedly proves that the CIA used a particle beam weapon to kill the crew of Soyuz 11.

I'm therefore thinking of adding a section to the article entitled 'Fictional References' but would like to confirm that it would be appropriate to do so. Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand: By 935 seconds after the retrofire, the cabin pressure was zero, and remained there until the ship hit the earth's atmosphere.[8]

On the other hand: It is estimated that the cabin lost all its atmosphere in about 30 seconds.

Clarification is needed here, I think. Zdrak2 (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten this. It seemed to be a copy-and-rewrite of this NASA article, specifically the lines "When the valve opened at a height of 168 kilometers, the gradual but steady loss of pressure was fatal to the crew within about 30 seconds. By 935 seconds after retrofire, the cabin pressure had dropped to zero and remained there until 1,640 seconds when the pressure began to increase as the ship entered the upper reaches of the atmosphere." I can see where the confusion arose; the NASA article implies that the cabin pressure dropped to fatal levels within thirty seconds, and then took a further fifteen minutes to completely evacuate. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current "Death of crew" claims both that the crew suffocated and that the pressure drop was fatal within seconds. This is highly unlikely in combination. Did, rather, the pressure reach a lethal level within seconds? (But the crew remained alive for a somewhat longer time.) 88.77.147.227 (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research showed that a human retains about 10-15 seconds of useful consciousness in a near vacuum or hard vacuum (high altitude or space). After that, the brain runs out of oxygen and oxygen rapidly diffuses out of the blood, into the lungs and vents into the vacuum. Death typically occurs around 90 seconds due to ventricular fibrillation, with no animal test subjects being able to be defibrillated after 90 seconds of ventricular fibrillation. There have been a few human vacuum exposures, two being limited to part of a hand or a full hand, respectively and two whole body exposures that were under one minute of vacuum exposure. The only other human cases were on the Soyuz 11 mission, with tragic loss of the entire crew.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that the crew suffered brain hemorrhage and I'd guess ventricular fibrillation can be caused by brain injury (as well as oxygen deprivation (and perhaps depressurization)). I don't know if we KNOW how people die when subjected to sudden vacuum. Clearly we don't have enough human examples but the animal tests may be definitive, I don't know. Anyway, there is more than just asphyxiation going on when pressure rapidly drops to zero.174.131.63.233 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Launch date appears to be incorrect (June 7, 1971). Actual launch date was June 6, 1971 http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/history/flights_soyuz.html and other book sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.242.49 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the body of the text to reflect the date 6th June since this agrees with the panel at the side, and pretty much every source I can find online, including ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4] and several others. Also I'm therefore removing the tag about ambiguity of dates from the header DHems (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede states Soyuz 11 was the " ...was the first successful visit to the world's first space station..." Can this really be considered a successful visit if the crew died before their return to earth? I suggest the sentence be re-written as "... was the first visit to the world's first space station..."Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the visit was successful; it was the re-entry that failed. Details, details, I know, but the question is, how important is that particular detail? Jedikaiti (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the "reqphoto" tag to request a photo of the monument at the landing site. Jedikaiti (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments on wikimapia that the memorial has been destroyed. (There are massive issues with metal theft in Sary Shagan so it's possible). Secretlondon (talk)

I came to the talk page to make the same request. Is there a pre-theft photograph? Surely somebody has one. JDAWiseman (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence at the end of the heading is poorly worded and misleading:

The "Death of crew" section states that the valve opened at 168km. This altitude is above the Kármán line^[1] and therefore in space, it is hardly outside the atmosphere. For example, the ISS orbits at ~400km but has to perform periodic orbit boosts to account for atmospheric drag^[2].

I propose the sentence be reworded to say the crew of Soyuz 11 are the only humans to have died in space.

Works for me. JDAWiseman (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soyuz 11. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/Salyut1_Anniversary_010419.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/n-s/space.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I've noticed a Conflict in the infoboxes between German and English. Both boxes reference UTC as Time, however they both have different Time intervalls. My guess is that the time given here is Local as opposed to UTC. I have one source, but given this conflict i'd rather not change on 1 Source: http://www.spacefacts.de/mission/english/soyuz-11.htm Can someone do some Verification on that? Thanks. --Hendrikharry (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soyuz 11. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415160730/http://www.astronautix.com/sites/baiurlc1.htmtohttp://www.astronautix.com/sites/baiurlc1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030215242/http://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz11.htmtohttp://www.astronautix.com/flights/soyuz11.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added {{OR?}} in the "Memorial" section since it appears to me that the sentences before the template was written by observing the monument directly in Google Maps which means it's an original research. Sersan Mayor Kururu (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]