I'm somewhat torn between Sputnik, the flight of Yuri Gagarin, and Apollo as very important "firsts." I tend to think, that for sheer increase in knowledge, my vote would have to go to Voyager.

I voted for Apollo!! Everyone in the WORLD watched that live.

And Neil Armstrong said when he got back "Ohh, I missed it"

I voted Luna, I think this took more of a leap than the manned moon landing

Getting humans there is the ultimate goal. I did consider Voyager for its significance of getting out that far.

I voted Gagarin, for some reason. I guess there is always going to be that next step, but for me the first major step was the first human to leave Earth.

The moon landing of course

It has shown us that we can ourselves get to other words if we try hard enough even though Voyager has proven that any unmanned craft can get to the outer regions of our solar system

I voted for Apollo, because the engineering required for that task is much greater than sending unmanned missions into space. Clearly some of the solar system probes have increased our knowledge greatly, but landing on the moon was the most monumental task.

I guess the answer to this question depends on how you define "significant".

Apollo.

man on another LANDFORM in space! If looking at each century and determining what one positive thing defined that century, the defining moment of the 20th would have to be that a man stepped on the moon. imo.


edited for planetary correctness:

Just to clear something up. The moon is not a planet. It is, well, a moon. Planets orbit the Sun; moons orbit planets. Planets are MUCH harder to get to. Mars in another planet and will likely be the first on man visits, although I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Although I do know from personal experience that NASA has studied different possibilities for sending a man to Mars.

I voted for Apollo.

Kennedy's call to take us to the moon, created the vision in Americans to think beyond just circling the planet a few times. During the next seven years, NASA and private corporations designed, developed, tested and implemented one of the greatest achievements of our time.

Taking a human from this planet, sending him to another celestial body, and returning him safe to earth. And then doing it another 5 times, in the next five years, just to show that it wasn't a fluke.

The first men in space, Russian and American, while significant, were little more than passengers on balistic missiles. The astronauts on the later Soyuz, Gemini, and Apollo missions really stretched the boundaries of what was possible, ending with the landing on the moon, and the safe return home.

This is a tough one, but eventually I went with Gagarin. Apollo 11 was very impressive, but I think that a lot of people here will vote out of national ferver rather than objective opinion.
Actually climbing onto a rocket and leaving the earths atmosphere. Being the first person to ever do that, to leave the place we call home. That is more impressive to me.
Also taking into account the bravery of the action, and the risk he took when one considers the almost experimental nature of the R7 rocket upon which he was launched, Gagarin paved the way for all those who followed, including the Apollo 11 astronauts.

The key word here is significant.

Going to moon was impressive, but it had no real significance to the exploration of space. The lunar landings were almost excersizes in technological ability and political posturing, and of all the Apollo missions, only one carried a geologist!

So I am afraid that, all things considered, Yuri Gagarin, in his finest hours, in my humble opinion owns the most significant acheivement in the history of space exploration.


However, there was one aspect of space exploration that I think is almost as important, and that was the joint Apollo Soyuz test mission which was the first truly international, manned endeavour.

editted to add

NiteGuy



In the film, 'The Right Stuff' Chuck Yeager is quoted as saying that a monkey on a rocket does understand what he is about. He does not know he is strapped onto the top of a giant explosive... but men do know'.

One could just as easily say that the Apollo astronauts were also passengers, tourists on an automated ship.

Of course I wouldn't say that. But then I wouldn't call Yuri Gagarin a 'passenger' either.

I voted for the Viking lander on Mars. While the other manned missions and Voyager were noteworthy, Viking was the greatest technical and scientific achievement for it's time.

Hey! That geologist is supposedly a relative of mine! Not that I ever met him.(second cousin, thrice removed (by marriage, yet) kind if thing). But while Jack Schmitt was the only geologist by formal training on the flights, he did train the other astronauts in basic geology, and spent a lot of time with others examining what was brought back on earlier flights.

As to technological ability, I agree. It takes a lot of that to hit a golf ball on the moon. Seriously, after the first trip, we spent a lot of time trying out new techniques, new tools, etc. And I think that after the first landing, there really wasn't as much political posturing as you might think.


The Apollo ships were much more dependent on the on-board computers for navigation over the ones at Houston. And I certainly wouldn't call the guys on Apollo 13 mere passengers. That was "fly by the seat of your pants" in the truest sense of the word.

No. "Passenger" for either Gagarin or the first two Mercury astronauts may not be the exactly apropriate term, but it is true that the "mission controls" for all three controlled every stage of the flights, and had the manual on-board systems "locked out" for use by those in the ships, fearing that weightlessness might somehow adversly affect the astronauts, either physically or mentally.

Another definition of significant (according the American Heritage dictionary) is "fairly large, substantial".

Also, I am not saying Apollo because I am American. I am saying Apollo because it was the most difficult activity any space program has accomplished.

You say Gagarin was brave. And he was for sure. But the Apollo astronauts flew straight away from the earth for days. That also requires a fair amount of bravery.

I voted Gagarin.

As for Apollo, it is fake. Americans just sended probes that taken some dust, transmitted pre-recorded video and flied back home. Even Soviet Lunokhod made more. The videos were, without any doubt, were made on Earth. The gravity, the light, the wind, the moisture, the background, the spacesuits - everything tells that it was filmed on Earth. Compare this to Soviet Lunokhod videos - Lunokhod is 100% real.

But let's imagine that Apollo is real and compare it with Soviet Lunokhod project.

In terms of scientific knowledge about Universe, they are equal.

In terms of engineering thought, Lunokhod is more advanced, because it was AUTOMATED flight. The robot actually roamed surface of Moon and GET BACK without help of humans. Americans cannot do such thing even today. Americans were always backward in terms of robotics, space navigation and scientific computation (Buran is another example).

The only advantage of Apollo project over Lunokhod is that Apollo used bigger rocket, designed by Nazi scientist Von Braun. But if we look objectively, if USA didn't asassinated Korolyov, he would finish his rocket before in early 1969 (or in late 1968, depending on source).

Kimov, you do realize that this is not role-playing, right? People here are having real discussions relating to real facts.

1) NASA has the technology to send an unmanned probe to the moon and bring it home. (Clearly if you can fly humans there and back, you can fly a machine.)

2) It is harder to take humans to the moon and back because you have to do things like regulate temperature and scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere.

3) NASA's moon landing was real. (Evidence to the contrary is silly and easily disproved, and something this big would not be a secrete for long.) (Also, this is being discussed in another thread.)

4) None of this supports your assertion that the most significant achievement in space travel was the first man in space. I can see a case for Gagarin, but that case does not pivot on proving Apollo was faked.

Most people always let the Venus mission slip, sure the near 1000 degrees and incredible pressure destroyed the probe within seconds, but we landed on Venus. I play simulations, one of my favorite being sim earth in which you do mock colonization of mars. By no means is anything in regards to space travel of landing or any such activities easy to say the least, i failed multiple times to even get a small colony going and that was on a simulation run by a computer.

Overall i would have to go with the message sent into space by a certain group of people who were working with nasa. It was one of those learn about the human race tapes in case of alien contact. It seemed that it was taboo to describe the anatomy of the female body fully, while it was ok on the male side, imagine those confused aliens. Well at any rate they got past that problem, sent many forms of information and even encoded the current knowledge of the human genome into music. So who knows what we will get back, if anything.

Second place would be the international missions and space stations usage, as it showed that humans could exist in space, and that nations could work together to meet enormous problems, in a social and engineering sense.

I voted Gagarin, for much the same reasons as moif. Not because it was the most impressive - that honour definitely goes to the Apollo missions - but because it was first.

Indeed, I was torn between voting for Gagarin, and voting for Sputnik. In both cases the actual significance of what was sent up there, in terms of what they did and how long they stayed, pales in comparison to later missions, but the simple fact that they happened at all makes them the most significant in my mind.

The fact that we could get a hunk of metal up there at all - think of how different the world would be today without artifical satellites and all the communications, weather monitoring, location sensing, and so on that were enabled by that first step that went "beep-beep-beep".

The fact that we could send a man up there, and get him back in one piece to talk about it.

I guess it's like Stephenson's Rocket or the first Benz horseless carriage. They were both pretty modest in what they could do, compared to, say, the Mallard or the Model T, but they were the first of their type.

Not adding to the debate, but I believe many do consider the moon a planet. The exact meaning of planet to astronomers does not really require it to orbit a star, although popular definitions will say it does. Astronomers consider size more important, making Pluto a topic for debate on whether it is a planet or an asteroid as it is much smaller than our moon.

Nevertheless, the moon does actually orbit the sun. Proportionately, our moon is the largest satellite in the Solar system when compared with its parent planet. So large in fact that it doesnt just orbit the Earth, they orbit around each other. This is what is described as a double planet, giving a good basis for people to argue that Luna is a planet.

Ok. From American Herriage:

Moon: A natural satellite revolving around a planet.
Planet: A nonluminous celestial body that revolves around a star.

So does the motion of the moon constitute 'revolving around' the sun? Or does revolving around the sun imply an orbit with the sun at its focus?

I voted for the Lunar Landing, not only for it's technological difficulties, but because for one singular moment is the history of human civilization in this planet, a human achievement was enjoyed and participated by practically the whole planet, and it was a peaceful and constructive one.

BTW -- The mission to fix the Hubble should actually be mentioned as one of the important moments is Space Science.

-- my two cents --

Emm....

Dont look at me But thats a quite a question. You can see why astronomers can get into such fights as the definitions make things awkward. The meteors revolve around the sun, as do the thousands of comets from the Kuiper belt, so are they planets?

Um

Ok time to think about something else

I think Sputnik was the most significant. It showed that mankind had the ability
to overcome gravity and actually put something into space
that alone is a monumental feat since no one ever had done this before it signaled
a new era in science and was the beginning of it all. It led to more research and new developments. This discovery was the mother of all later discoveries it gave that first push. e.t.c,e.t.c,e.t.c. (Also gagarin died on landing so I felt I can vote for him)

voyager. one reason: pale blue dot

this photos shows just how tiny we really are compared to the rest of space. that tiny bright dot is home. that is from 3.7 billion miles away, and look how smal it is. it shows that if there are other earth sized planets, we would have trouble finding them. it also makes one wonder if there really is a divine entity that cares solely about that dot. what of the other dots? that photos shows just how small and likely insignificant we are in the scheme of things.

I went with Voyager, for those marvelous photos that kept coming and coming to us, our first glimpses of things too far away for telescopes and, of course, our first glimpses of home from elsewhere.

I agree that the Hubble repair mission should have been included in the poll.

Going to the moon had no significance???? I would have to completely disagree. In fact, on other polls, I frequently see this event as not just the most significant event in space exploration, but in all human history! Until this event, mankind was confined to this planet. After this event, mankind essentially knew no bounds. Sputnik and Gagarin, while certainly noteworthy, were really just precursors to this event. And I can't envision anything else superceding it until we land someone on a planet in another solar system.

As for the Hubble mission--while significant and important, do we really want a failure to be the most significant event in space? (ie--the Hubble shouldn't have needed repairs in the first place). Also, in the scope of humankind, what really did this achieve or prove? We already had done repairs in space, so this was really just an increase in magnitude, rather than any quantum shift. So, for that reason, it would certainly have to fall behind Sputnik, Gagarin, and Apollo 11, as all of these broke bounds that had not been broken before.

The moon landings are momentous not merely for how we achieved it, but that it was achieved at all. Imagine shooting a fly with a rifle at 100 yards. That sounds ridiculous enough. What I find truly amazing is that someone actually told a group of people to do it, and it was done. It symbolizes our ability to accomplish something incredibly difficult, and to do it for reasons beyond the traditional motivations of rational self-interest; to show that we can grow.

Lets not underestimate the accomplishments of the Hubble project however. Through it's deployment (along with the Chandra X-Ray Observer) our understanding of the galaxy has expanded dramatically.

I voted "Other" because I consider the Shuttle Program much more significant to the future of our space efforts.

A reusable vehicle for travelling to space was a huge leap from "fire it up there and only recover the pilot's capsule".

It might sound somewhat trite.
However, I think that every accomplishment in space was the greatest at that given time.

I disagree.

China putting a man in space is unremarkable, for example.

The Hubble initial mission was flawed ... but...

The importance of Hubble Space Telescope REPAIR mission, by the Space Shuttle, was that -- almost by accident -- NASA discovered the _real_ use of manned missions, repairing satellites. Sadly, since it is now a burocracy, it failed to recognize that this is a real economic-- as in money producing -- facet of manned flight. They had recovered a satellite before but never fixed it in space before.

Humanities current most important economic use of Space is on unmanned satellites for communications, weather information, and for intelligence gathering. We spend -- all countries, not just the USA -- billions of dollars putting satellites in orbit with expendable rockets. If they fail to reach orbit or become disabled, we abandon them in place or sometimes even purposely crash them back in Earth. Currently in the USA a satellite has to be insured, and due to the common failure of expendable rockets, that insurance is more than a third of the satellites cost!

One thing that the Hubble repair mission proved is that humans can work out there and do things that robots cannot yet. A whole industry -- satellite repair and refurbishing -- is waiting for someone to discover its economic potential! If you study a bit history you can quickly recognize that economic potential is what really drives exploration and colonization.

Besides, once fixed, the Hubble telescope as provided the astrophysics with an amount of data equivalent to decades, if not centuries, of observation from Earth.

Gagarin and Sputnik were fakes. If I was to say that, without further explanation, I would probably get a strike. Somehow I find satire as the best way to disagree with popular conspiracy theories, that are somehow considered constructive debate. I usually counter insanity with insanity.I am trying to learn to stop that.

Each of the missions was simply a step up, technologically speaking, from previous accomplishments. The Apollo mission was the most significant due to the fact that it caught the American publics attention and built a consensus for government funding of future space programs.

I went with the Apolo/Soyuz dockings, because this started a world effort on the exploration of space, and started the move away from political accomplishments and into profit and exploration for it's own purpose. To colonize other planets, it will take an international effort, with some suppression of nationalism and some diplomatic agreement as to the goverment on these other "bodies" (to stay away from what a planet is argument LOL) I have heard the saying many time that a trip to mars will require "the education of the Russians and the money of the Americans", and I agree with this as well. For us to colonize our Solar system, as a race of humans, we will need a global cooperation to make it succeed, which means a social maturation that we don't have right now, at almost any level.

I am raising my children so they have a possibility of being the first colonists if they wish it, and I am not joking. My daughter already is taught daily four languages by my wife and mother-in-law and my mother. She will know Russian, Japanese, English and French, the languages, IMO, that will be neccesary for any colonist in the future. Perhaps my son and Daughter will not wish to do this, but they will have the tools. I just hope the rest of the world can catch up to them LOL

I voted for Salyut, but it was a close tie with Yuri Gagarin in my mind.

In my mind any significant accomplishments in the coming decades will be a direct result of our ability to live and work in space. It is extremely costly to send a space shuttle into orbit for missions of up to a few weeks.

As I see it the critical next steps for space technology and exploration are:
- Continuous scientific presence in space to research new technologies and materials.
- Developing the ability to manufacture objects and machinery in space.

Without achieving these critical goals I think that goals such as manned missions to other planets, planetary colonization and manned flight outside the solar system will never be possible.

The Hubble Space Telescope and I'll tell you why. Astronomy is inextricably linked to advances in natural science. It is the oldest science along with the most meticulas records in all of the sciences is astronomy. Galileo, Newton, and more recently Hawkin's could attribute their success, if not measure it, by advances in the understanding in this feild. Some think that Stonehedge is a big mystery but its obvious what it is, its an attempt at a calander.

Eye on Infinity

I never thought going to the Moon was all that important. Mapping, measuring, understanding the heavens systematically is on the other hand vital to our understanding of (among other things), time.

I voted Other for the ISS. I believe it is required in order to colonizes other planets since it would take us approxamately 50 years at the speed of light to reach the next closest solar system.

First space station.

Despite the 'showboating' of the moon landings, we have yet to make any real use of the moon despite various rare materials (such as helium 3) being present.

The various space stations have been a a great boon to science, and are teaching us how to live long term in artifical constructs in space, which is what I believe the ultimate goal of the space programs of the world should be.

Gagarin as the first human being in space was the most important step in the exploration of space. Basically it showed that humans can survive in space which started the space race with all its small and big steps. Of course most Americans will say the Apollo Missions were the biggest accomplishment as well as Russians will vote for either Sputnik or Gagarins flight. Its understandable that each nation is proud of its own accomplishments. Therefore a realistic assessment of the topic can only be given by people that are neither American nor (former) Soviet.

I voted for the first man made object in space
For the reason that it was the building block to man space flight, and i say this because if it wasn't for the russian effort we would have never pushed are Nasa scientist's so hard to also make objects to be placed in space, just like whats going on now with china whanting to build a base on the moon so are president steps in after and says were going to also build a base on the. The race is on once again.

locke1

I vote for Apollo program. First step on a REAL out space. First step on another planet (even a moon ).

And incredible difficult of ever point of program. And quantity of expeditions. Greatest venture.

I went with the Apollo program as an important first.

I do think that Venera's landing on Venus is underrepresented here though.

Here is my reasoning. I believe the other firsts were only a matter of time whereas Apollo and Venera are relatively anomalous. A true 'first' has to be anomalous by nature. Columbus comes to mind here, for his thinking was anomalous and represents the true courage of 'blazing a trail'. It is still too soon to see the effects of these 'anomalies', we are not 'above' them yet. We are still saying "Jeez we did that"?

Another interesting point: No one else to this day has landed on the moon. Likewise, no one else to this day has successfully soft landed a probe on Venus. These two events are not only products of the space exploration era, they are MARKED departures (quantum leaps) from it. Everything else has proceeded in a more or less 'linear' fashion.