Talk:List of spaceflight records/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of spaceflight records. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

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)

Gemini 10 and Gemini 11 both used their Agena docking targets to raise their orbits. Gemini 10 to a 763-km apogee and Gemini 11 to 1,374-km apogee. These are the highest altitude non-lunar missions to date.Error 404 22:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--Patrick 11:47, 2004 Oct 23 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

How did Gagarin land if he didn't land in his spacecraft? The only difference I know of is that he landed on land, while Shepard landed in the sea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.95.166 (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He ejected at 23,000 ft, as planned. They thought the Vostok landing might be too rough for the cosmonaut to take, so all the Vostok crew bailed out. Cosmonauts didn't land with their craft until the follow-on Vokshod program began in '64.--Apascover (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale's official definition of spaceflight requires landing in your spaceship - but they themselves overlook that part and proclaim Gagarin as first. The definition problem also arises with the first Israeli astronaut.

"2.12.3 The pilot and crew must be inside the spaceship component at take-off and all of them must reach the place of flight termination alive.

2.12.4 The pilot and crew of an aerospacecraft shall remain inside the vehicle during descent and landing. For spacecraft any method of descent and landing is acceptable provided the method is described in detail in the pre-flight plan." Rmhermen (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I realize this is an extremely stale talk section, but if there is anyone who knows who the Khazakhstani fliers were I'm more than willing to update them. The trouble is that fliers from the USSR were of varying nationalities in the modern sense so without crawling one by one through the list there's no way to know.

There is also the problem of how to denote them. The Ukranian flier, whom I'd have to look up again, is marked as such on Space Facts, as are some of the Russian fliers. But members of other SSR's are not. My presumption is that they flew flights as citizens of both nations or, a less likely justification, were alive long enough to be citizens of both nations. The second option being less likely as I think a lot more than a handful former USSR fliers were from other internal SSR's.

Okay, as I'm thinking of this I've come up with a plan. Feel free to disagree.

As successor state to the USSR in many international forums, The USSR/Russia total can continue to be combined with the non-Russian USSR citizens listed as dual citizens.
New or updated entries can be made for all non-Russian SSR's.

Any objections? aremisasling (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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_Simulations_{User 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_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

Move Yeah, that's pretty clear. Soxred93 | talk count bot 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

You are entirely correct that many of them can be easily verified on external sites. Most is a harder statement to defend as I've run into that exact problem with finding references for them. Most, if not all, are referenceable. Easily is an entirely different story. I found the Space Facts source that looks to be the root of the Time in Space records (both national and individual). But tallest/shortest could be a trick to find, among others. The refs tag is totally legit in my mind. If the whole thing were referenced but a few were missing, that would be a different story. But this article is largely unreferenced. aremisasling (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

lengths of time that records have stood for

This seems rather redundant, as anyone is free to do the math themselves. I'm going to be bold and remove these, as they don't really serve any purpose Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful user subpage tables

I have a table subpage for space lists. Most will be private space/records lists and some may be useful to have here. For the moment the most directly useful for this page is the list of astronauts/cosmonauts currently in space. User:Aremisasling/Space Lists aremisasling (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Human spaceflight firsts - country

(comment moved to the bottom of the talk page)

European Union is not a country. And ESA is different from EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.18.12 (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, however, it is a major space agency. And the nations included when you expand the list are only members of the ESA agreements, not the whole of the EU. Viewing the count of man hours logged by astronauts from ESA nations is a useful view in the context of space. You can also find all of the nations in the ESA list listed speparately below the ESA entry. The intent was not to mischaracterize the ESA as the EU or either of those entities as a nation, but to recognize their existance as major space entity. From my point of view it is a useful and reasonable addition to the list. aremisasling (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John Young -- seven flights

The article states that John Young has seven flights because his lunar landing Apollo 16 mission counts as two seperate flights (one from the Earth, one from the moon). I've never before seen any official or unofficial source claim that lunar landing missions count as two spaceflights. I think this article should reflect the consensus that a lunar landing is one continuous flight from Earth.Hellbound Hound (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at length. Particularly on the John Young page. Please read that page and Google others. Also, as a compromise, this site already makes it clear that it is 6 flights from Earth and one from the Moon. Alan Davidson (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Longest time spent in space by people other than Valeri Polyakov

What's the second, third, fourth, fifth and so on longest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Total Time in Space section has the top 50. But you seem to be asking about the longest single missions, I think. Rmhermen (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple women in space

The upcoming launch of of STS-131 will mean there will be four women in space at the same time (three from STS-131 and one already on the ISS). Any cites for the first time there were three and two women in space? Rillian (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Two was STS-41-G in 1984, and three was STS-40 in 1991. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Removals

Longest canine single flight
Time two women in space
Time three women in space
Time four women in space

What does everyone else think?

--Craigboy (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a list of records, and those are records. They are interesting and should be kept. If you remove those then you need to remove ones like youngest and earliest born, notable unmanned spaceflights and fastest sections as well. Removing all those would make it pretty short and probably would need to be merged or could risk being deleted.--NavyBlue84 03:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

When you get down to specifics there are billions of spaceflight records and the four I listed just don't seem significant. Why does any of those four matter? --Craigboy (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The ones you listed is simple. First, not many women have flown in space. Out of 500+ people in space, only about 20 or 25 have were women. Second, yes there were a number of animals, but the fact that the flight was 22 days and the dogs survived is remarkable and important. As for the ones I listed, no other spacecraft has travled 39,000+ MPH. For earliest born, obviously was one of the first people in space. Most astro's are late 30's or 40's, so that is significant. The unmanned one, are importnat exploration milestones, but that is a weak argument, so I guess that one might be removed no problem.--NavyBlue84 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stay on topic. There's been over 50 women (roughly 1/5th of all space travelers). Listing how many women have been in space at once seems to make the list more into a score card instead of a list of achievements.

It is unlikely that there will be many if any more canine flights in the future, non-human flights are only significant when they’re precursors to human flight. We don’t include the longest flight by a monkey, cat, rodent, fish, fruit fly, frog, or a turtle nor should we.--Craigboy (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Navy Blue. In the context of this page, its size and the history of space flight, they should remain. 130.102.158.15 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was on topic, didn't know which 4 items you wanted me to respond to so I responded to them all. You made my point Craigboy, there won't likely be any more canine or solely non-human flights any more, so because of that it is historical and should be kept. It doesn't really matter how many women have flown, we include in the list the first time there were 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on all the way up to 13 people in space, so why not when there is 2, 3 or 4 women? By that standard, we would need to remove all the entries for total number of people in space! Which I don't foresee happening.--NavyBlue84 01:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because there won't be anymore doesn't make it significant. What makes the longest canine flight anymore significant than the longest by a frog? Veterok and Ugolyok may have a place on the list as the first animals to spend 22 days in orbit, but not for the longest canine flight.

I mean a score card between the sexes. A large amount of women in space at once doesn't really mean anything. Maybe the first gender balanced crew (50-50) would be significant, but just launching a bunch of women in space doesn't really move us forward or break down any barriers in society. So that's why I don't think its significant. --Craigboy (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming entry

Sunita Williams will enter the list of 50 longest in space in about 2 weeks. How often are we going to update this? She will end up 36, I believe. Rmhermen (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Most number of people in space simultaneously

What about:

- Most number of people in space simultaneously

- Most number of people in a space walk simultaneously

Mmathu (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Those records are already on the page. Rmhermen (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Total human spaceflight time by country

The section's picture has this text below it: 'Person hours in space as of January 18, 2010'. Maybe it should be days, I think? 85.217.38.70 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I also noticed that graph caption. “Person hours” seems to be wrong. I also suspect it should be “person days”. Qeorqe (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed this; it looks like the ALT-text was correct, though! :) Mlm42 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I hadn't realised before just now, but that list is dynamically updated, and therefore care needs to be taken when new people are launched into space.. in fact it hasn't been updated in a while, so it's currently assuming there are two Russians, three Americans, and no one else in space, and counting up accordingly.. that's not good. Mlm42 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone updating this section? I guess someone had a script to do it... is that still in effect? Andrewpullin (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oldest person to perform an EVA

Pavel Vinogradov is the oldest person to have perform an EVA, he was 59 at the time.(source)--Craigboy (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Ten longest spaceflights omission

The list of 10 longest space missions is missing several missions which were record flights in their day. Both were Salyut 7 flights, the first, 1982 May 13 - Dec 10, lasted 211 days, 9 hours, with Anatoli Berezovoi and Valentin Lebedev going up on Soyuz T 5 and returning on Soyuz T 7, the all-time longest flight to that time. The flight which broke that record flew 1984 Feb 5 - Oct 2, with Leonid Kizim, Vladimir Solovyov and Oleg Atkov launcged in Soyuz T 10 and returning on Soyuz T 11. Canada Jack (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that too. These old missions should still count as #7 and #9 today. Also, according to the table on the Salyut-7 page, Kizim and Solovyov made 6 spacewalks on their first Saluyt-7 visit, which should be the record for "Most spacewalks during a single mission" instead of the American Michael López-Alegría on the ISS. Can somebody verify? (I don't know how to properly edit tabular material on Wikipedia) 183.76.108.140 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Foale

Michael Foale's entry credits his country as "United States / United Kingdom". He has 373.763 days, yet 'by country' section has UK time as 7.88 days only. So there is a whole year missing. If he is credited as UK citizen then I think it should count to the UK total also. 82.141.67.208 (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Feminist bias

Why is there so much feminine bias in this list? Who cares when a woman managed to follow a man in this or that, or even gossiped with three other women (the ridiculous 'Four women in space at once' entry)? When I want to read about records, I want records and records alone, not records necessarily followed by 'also, when it comes to WOMEN, I'll have you know that they managed it too', in a true 'Carthago delenda' fashion. This distracts from the real content of the list. A record has nothing to do with gender. Being first is being first. Stop pretending that a woman repeating an achievement is as noteworthy as the achievement itself. (Or else we're going to make subentries from first black people in space, first homosexuals in space, etc. etc.) 178.42.103.203 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Decimal numbers

Might I ask why the numbers in the code change so often? Alan Davidson (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Farthest: compare Apollo 13 to other Apollo missions, circumstances

The article says, for Farthest from earth: "Apollo 13 crew; Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert while passing over the far side of the moon at an altitude of 254 km (158 mi) from the lunar surface, were 400,171 km (248,655 mi) from Earth. This record breaking distance was reached at 0:21 UTC on 15 April 1970."

How does this compare with other Apollo missions, and why did this one set the record? I'm guessing that it just happened that the moon was nearer to apogee during that mission, but a citation and some comparisons would help a lot. One source lists the precise apogee that month as "Apr 15 6:21 404457 km F-6d10h" [2] The Guinness Book citation at Apollo 13 notes a factor that I'm guessing may be less important: that the trajectory was 100 km higher over the surface than other missions. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Human presence in space

If the ISS has been continuously occupied for 15 years and counting, when was the last time there were no humans in space? Was it as the ISS was being launched, or were there humans in space on other stations at that time? Hypershock (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There were no other humans in space between 19 Sep 2000 (the 100th shuttle mission) and 11 Oct 2000 (the first occupation of ISS). Mir's last crew left 16 June 2000. Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So... are there any other inhabited spacecraft at the moment? Hypershock (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The only nations to launch people into space are Russia, the USA and China. All Soyuz missions since 2001 have gone to the ISS. The last USA launched human spaceflight was in 2011 and the next one is not expected to occur until at least 2017 (Either Dragon or CST-100, later Orion). The last Shenzhou mission was in 2013, next one won't fly until at least 2016. There are other space powers ESA, Japan, Canada and India. The first three don't have any solid independent human spaceflight plans and India's manned program keeps getting kicked down the road.--Craigboy (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Should private companies be added?

SpaceShipOne could be added to the "First independent sub-orbital and orbital human spaceflight by country" section[3]. It was completed by 'Mojave Aerospace Ventures, a precursor to Virgin Galactic. The manned flight hit 112 km in 2004, qualifying as a sub-orbital flight. Also, some sections could be added for records in the private industry, including companies such as Virgin Galactic, Orbital Sciences, SpaceX, etc...

Smt98 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Notable unmanned spaceflights

No mention of the SpaceX rocket that came back after delivering 11 satellites and landed on its feet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.3.245 (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I certainly agree it is worth referencing. As this page also makes references to notable sub-orbital flights, we should probably also consider the Blue Origin flight as well. Andrewpullin (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of spaceflight records. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Countries by time in space table

This table is badly incorrect as it is using scripts to update the spaceflight time of people who have been back on year for months now. The Netherlands now at 6th should in fact be 10th, for example. The source from the article should be enough to compute the correct current times but I don't know how to handle the function that computes current fliers. Rmhermen (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but I thought I might shed some light on it. I believe the old script was originally mine. I am a computer programmer by trade, but it was my first go round with Wiki scripting so it was definitely problematic. The original motivation was that with static durations and manual updating, the table was considerably out of date at the time I created the script. Had it gotten regular enough attention I don't know that I would have tackled a script at all. That said, I'm happy just to see it updated, whether by a more well-written script or through more frequent manual updates. aremisasling (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is someone maintaining this section? Does anyone have the code? I have my own script that was generating similar data using spacefacts.de data, but I am not sure how to perform automated updates of this page... assuming anyone is even interested. Any opinions? I like seeing this data up-to-date, but if no one else cares perhaps it should go for good? Andrewpullin (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see it up-to-date but I don't understand the method being used to automatically update it. If we can't figure it out, we could go back to a static table with manual updates. Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I can update it using my data, however there is an issue: My numbers are somewhat different... I don't take into account the large number of "dual citizens" as seems to be the case with this data. I use only what is provided on spacefacts.de. For instance, the United Kingdom only has 7.9 days of flight time, as Michael Foale, counted here as a dual citizen, is only recorded as a US citizen in spacefacts.de. I am not sure how the citizenship of the current data is determined / maintained. Andrewpullin (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Having data with known source is better than what we have now, so I would say, go ahead and do it that way. Rmhermen (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rank	Nation	Total person-days
1	USSR / Russia	35,469.24 + *
2	USA	26,173.93 + *
—	ESA Austria Belgium Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom	6,672.90 +
3	Japan	741.87
4	Germany	493.64
5	France	433.19
6	Netherlands	4,766.00 +
7	United Kingdom	407.18 *
8	Canada	360.55
9	Italy	261.26
10	Belgium	207.65
11	Costa Rica	66.76 *
12	China	57.00
13	Switzerland	42.50
14	Hungary	34.45 *
15	Sweden	26.74
16	Spain	18.88
17	Israel	15.93
18	Ukraine	15.69 *
19	Bulgaria	11.91
20	Malaysia	10.885
21	Iran	10.878 *
22	South Korea	10.875
23	South Africa	9.893
24	Brazil	9.888
25	Syria	8.9
26	Afghanistan	8.85
27	Czechoslovakia	7.93
28	Austria	7.928
29	Poland	7.919
30	Slovakia	7.914
31	India	7.903
32	Cuba	7.863
33	Mongolia	7.863
34	Vietnam	7.862
35	Romania	7.862
36	Saudi Arabia	7.069
37	Mexico	6.878

As of November 19, 2012

+ and counting

* Dual citizens counted under both nationalities.

Nation Space Stats Update

This is discussion related to the new table in the List_of_spaceflight_records#Total_human_spaceflight_time_by_country section (table has been removed to reduce clutter now that it is back in the article) Andrewpullin (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is quick output from my own script. It uses data from spacefacts.de just like the previous version. However this one automatically determines which astronauts are currently in space and adds their time in space to the nation stats. Let me know what you think. I still have lots of tweaking to do, not to mention figuring out how to get a bot to keep it uptodate... Andrewpullin (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would limit it to two decimal places, and as in the old table, combine Russia/USSR (which seems to use the same data) and replace UN which has no space program with ESA which does. Rmhermen (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, those things were already on my todo list. I'll post an update soon. If you have any other ideas, let me know. Andrewpullin (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments on my most recent update? I'm still working on a way to automate the update process, but for now I can start manually keeping it up-to-date if people think it is ready to go live... Andrewpullin (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The percent of total column has a button for sorting which doesn't work. I know you can make a row non-sortable but I don't think you can remove it from a column. Perhaps a hidden value could be added to make it function (at the expense of more work each update). Any ideas? Rmhermen (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the last column with a hidden div with the percentages. It now sorts like the other fields. I will also be adding a proper citation to this table. Other than that, any more changes? Andrewpullin (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I basically have a bot working now to do the updates automatically. What kind of update schedule will we want for this? Daily? Weekly? Andrewpullin (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Status Update: Andrewpullin (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I have the bot (User:SpaceFactsBot under trial for approval BRFA (Bots: Request for approval). Sorry for the delay but the BRFA has been busy so it took a little while for them to move me to trial. Here are some details:

Request for approval page: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval#SpaceFactsBot

Bot Page: User:SpaceFactsBot

Trial Location: User:SpaceFactsBot/sandbox

Shutdown Information:

SpaceFactsBot will always look for the following identifier tags for the table. So if you ever find the bot is failing, simply remove these lines from around the table and it will stop updating it (and generate an error message that will go to me):

I am also looking into the formal emergency shutdown procedures for the bot (right now the emergency shutdown button on the User:SpaceFactsBot page may not be working...

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments on the following issues:

If my bot is approved, can I go ahead and engage it on this site (approval should come in 4-5 days if trial finishes successfully)? (I will take no comments as an assent)

There are several other tables and statistics on this site derived from spacefacts.de that are also somewhat out of date. Does anyone have any problem with me adapting my bot to update those records as well?

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The trial was successful, and I have been approved for a live 3 day trial on the page. I have setup the table on this wiki page. It will be getting update around 5:01 AM UTC every day. I will also test it today to make sure the system starts okay.

NOTE: I am removing the table from this talk section as it is not really needed here any more and just adding to the clutter.

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Had a bug in my flight matching. The bot was confusing soyuz flights with similar names. It should be corrected now

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Another bug that I noticed, it was not showing "in orbit" statistics for Chinese launches (Taikonauts). It was due to the Shenzhou launches being saved with decimal (Arabic) numbers in the flight reference, but saved with Roman numerals in the astronaut reference! Unfortunately I can not change the source data. I have implemented a conversion between the Roman/Arabic flight numbers to solve the problem.

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Minor update to add the names of the astronauts currently in orbit to the bottom of the table

Update Andrewpullin (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated SpaceFactsBot to save the table to a template instead as suggested by User:Djr13. The main advantage of this is that it removed the daily update noise that SpaceFactsBot adds to the history of the article. This should make it easier for people to find more substantive changes, instead of being overwhelmed by the daily SpaceFactsBot updates. See this User_talk:Andrewpullin#SpaceFactsBot_and_embedded_tables talk section for our discussion.

If anyone has a problem with this change, just add on to the discussion here and we can see how best to proceed. Andrewpullin (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Total time in space needs a better source

The Total Time in Space section is inaccurate primarily because the source itself is inaccurate. Spacefacts.de doesn't just infrequently update, several of their entries are demonstrably incorrect. The most notable, at present, are the Entries for Scott Kelly and Gennady Padalka, which list them as having significantly less time in space than they have accrued. Kelly in particular is listed as having only 180 days in space when he has spent more time than that on this ISS mission alone. I've made an effort to resolve it myself, but am unable to find a better source at the moment with a top list. Records may have to be updated individually similar to List of the verified oldest people. aremisasling (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi aremisasling, spacefacts.de doesn't update the total time in space until the astronauts return to earth. The list below ("Total human spaceflight time by country") is updated by my SpaceFactsBot which adds up the totals for astronauts, and then calculates the running totals for those that are in space, based on when they launched. I haven't programmed an extension to SpaceFactsBot to automatically update the "Total time in space" section, though I process all the data... There just wasn't much demand as - until recently - it was quite rare for an active astronaut in the top-50 overall to actually go on a space flight. Anyway, I can certainly do this if there is a desire for it from the community. Also, if a better database can be found that is accessible, I can certainly switch. However, other than the fact they sometimes have a brief lag after a landing before they update records, I find the guys at spacefacts.de do a pretty good job for a couple armchair enthusiasts. They do get the exact times from NASA, Chinese and Roscomos databases (in some manual way)... so the times should be accurate, if slightly delayed. Andrewpullin (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also wondering if that section should have a more descriptive and consistent title, such as "Record human spaceflight time by individuals", or something similar. Anyone have suggestions? Andrewpullin (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't worked out the system by which they updated their page so it looked to me like they were just very out of date and inconsistently so. With that clarification I have no particular issue with continuing to use them as a source. I was actually pretty disappointed when it first appeared they were inaccurate. They have such a rich and detailed dataset it would have been tough to replace. Since it's pretty rare that that section is updated, I don't think there's a major need to script it, unless you're feeling motivated. It may be good to update it in the interim based on other news sources, particularly for the long duration missions. I can do that when I have a moment. aremisasling (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I will look into this a bit further... might be worth updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.27.116 (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign that comment. Andrewpullin (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Extension of SpaceFactsBot to Handle Total Time in Space Record Table

I am going to formally request approval for a extension of SpaceFactsBot to also update data in this table. I will keep everyone posted on the progress Andrewpullin (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox for my bot code to do some Beta testing. You can check it out here: SpaceFactsBot sandbox Andrewpullin (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I just tried an extra feature that includes the top 50 space flyers, but then also checks everyone with over 100 days in space and finds the top space flyer for a particular country. This will make the table a little more informative be adding those individuals. I could also do this for ALL space flyers (not just with 100 days or more), but that would mean a lot of people with just short flights (shuttle flights typically), and that seems to not really keep to the spirit of "long" duration space flyers. Anyway, I would like some feedback on this idea... (check the above sandbox link for details) Andrewpullin (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I like it! The table needs to be able to show Soviet/Russian for astronauts that straddled the fall of the USSR, as well as indicating that some of the retired astronauts are deceased. It should also be clear in the table's presentation what the extra people on the bottom are there for. Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We never ended up adding this feature to space facts bot, did we? I'm just going to remove the accuracy tag from that section as the user that added it in the first place acknowledged that they were mistaken. Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

After much delay, I've found some time to start working on this by adapting User:SpaceFactsBot to handle this table as well. I currently have it updating the following template so that it can easily be inserted in this page (and other pages if required), while not adding to the "noise" in the history of the page (as we did for the other SpaceFactsBot Table). Template:Record_human_space_flight_by_individuals. I still have two major issues to deal with before it goes live. 1) Create redirect pages from their full names (as they appear on spacefacts.de) to their wikipedia pages... they do not all currently match. 2) figure out a good way to keep track of who has officially retired and who is deceased, as spacefacts.de is not keeping that up-to-date, particularly for those who are deceased... So, should we just continue sending updates to the spacefacts.de folks (who have been fairly quick when I have sent them updates in the past), or do I create some mechanism to track that separately, such as a "deceased" template that my code can check. Any thoughts are appreciated. Andrewpullin (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone added this template to the main page (essentially duplicating the table). It was done by an anonymous user. Was there a reason for that? I had intended that template as testing until the community had agreed it was ready to go live. Here is the revision in question. Anyone have any feedback on this? Andrewpullin (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there was a reason for it, someone was just overly enthusiastic. The template looks good, if you can get the full name and career status issues resolved! Astrofreak92 (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The career status should now get resolved once all the full names redirect to their individual wiki pages. My script checks those pages for the {{Infobox astronaut}} and checks the status or death_date parameters. The one other problem I have is nationality. SpaceFactsBot gets the nationality from spacefacts.de (as indicated in the Country Totals table further down). However, this is known to be somewhat out of date at times. Unfortunately, it is not trivial to get this information from their wiki page, as the nationality parameter is sometimes of the form American, or sometimes United States (to site an example). So either I would need to build a translation table and try to find all the various nationalities used by astronauts of many different nations (converting them to country codes), or we need to go through all these wiki pages and make it consistent. Alternatively, I could just post it as is, with the disclaimer that it is based on the spacefacts.de info... but I have a feeling that will ruffle feathers. Any thoughts? Andrewpullin (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Highest altitude for manned non-lunar mission

Is it possible to expand this Part in the Article? I mean a real Top-Ten/Twenty-List that is differentiated by elliptical and (nearly) circular Orbits, i mean differentiated by Apogee-Orbit-Altitude and Median-Orbit-Altitude. Exist anywhere a List with exact Information about this Kind of Spacefight Records?
Thanks Erik --2003:ED:F7FF:36A4:D409:EA9:FA40:C945 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Inflation of US spaceflight firsts

Other than landing on the moon, all the important spaceflight firsts were achieved by the Soviets. Adding a bunch of consolation prizes like "first to smash a cup in zero G" is just so weird. Need to clean this up, remove the unsourced firsts, and make sure the firsts are actually relevant and not just patriotic inflation.--70.53.205.79 (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you all did to ruin this beautiful list. You separated animal and unmanned firsts from the main list before adding all the inflation. This is a really messy article that would be far better if it was just "spaceflight firsts", period, including unmanned and animal flights, and if you put that list at the very beginning! Then you can have your time in space stuff and everything else. Article would be far shorter, neater, and clearer. Plus, it wouldn't look like a biased presentation of the situation based on americo-centric patriotism, which is oozing out of it right now.--70.53.205.79 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm very unclear what items you consider to be "inflation", would you mind listing some? Or are there some Soviet records you think are missing? As it stands, 34 human "firsts" are given to the US alone, while 22 are given to the USSR alone. Given that the USSR has not existed for 27 years and did not achieve many of the technical requirements for lunar spaceflight until after Apollo, that balance seems reasonable to me. The duration and spacewalk records are also dominated by Russian and Soviet astronauts. I don't see what is unfair about this. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Spaceflight record supersets and subsets

I'd like to understand the criteria for what constitutes a "record" in the early days of spaceflight. Gagarin is listed as the first person to reach space, and first person in orbit. In order to reach orbit, a spacecraft must first pass "sub-orbit". It is an incremental step towards the later journey. (Just as to run a consecutive 10km, one must first run a consecutive 5km). As such, I cannot understand the criteria under which Alan Shepard, second man in space, is listed as the "First person to make a suborbital flight". This is irrefutably false. Gagarin made a suborbital flight on the way to an orbital flight. An orbital flight is also a suborbital flight just as a 10K run is also a 5K run (but more). Just because one did not stop running at 5k doesn't mean they didn't run 5k when they run 10k Shepard's flight is notable because he was the first to pilot a craft in space, and landed in it. These are demonstrably notable and important achievements in the space race. The list of achievements does not need to be inflated with this additional bullet point.

I tried to remove this bullet point twice and it keeps being restored. Before I remove it a third time I'd like some discussion on the record for the reasons other editors have for keeping it. The edit comments do not make much sense to me: "What you're postulating is something that doesn't make sense at all - it's like saying a plane's destination is Vegas when it's just passing through there for New York" and "Different type of flight and one which may soon be popular in space tourism". I agree that one does not "visit" Vegas when flying over it to go to New York. And I agree that a suborbital flight is not a failed orbital flight, but one with it's own characteristics and planning. However as we are talking about Spaceflight records, once a full orbital flight is made there is no more record to claim for a suborbital flight. To use yet another track and field metaphor, If a record for a high jump is 1m90cm, and a jumper sets the bar for their jump at 2m, and clears it, there is no more record for 1m95cm to claim just because someone else sets the bar for it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npinguy (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

In a legal sense, yes the Freedom 7 was the first suborbital spaceflight.

"According to 14 CFR 401.5 [Title 14 Aeronautics and Space; Chapter III Commercial Space Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation (Parts 400 to 499); Subchapter A General; Part 401 Organization and Definitions], Suborbital Trajectory means “the intentional flight path of a launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or any portion thereof, whose vacuum instantaneous impact point does not leave the surface of the Earth."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/suborbital-trajectory-aeronautics-and-space/

110.11.158.7 (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Essentially at a glance you're simply relying on equalling oranges with apples; the differences between them is the trajectory. Yuri Gagarin reached both orbital velocity and a cycle round the planet and therefore is an orbital flight, wherein Shepard's velocity and trajectory is suborbital from beginning to the end. Speaking of the shape of their flights you should now get my point, unless you've been taking the Bird Box challenge eh? 113.210.53.116 (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

For example would you say that Apollo 8 made a free return trajectory when in reality it momentarily pass through the phase and moved on to orbiting the Moon? 113.210.53.116 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A suborbital flight is a flight that doesn't reach orbit. Gagarin reached orbit. So technically Shepard made the first suborbital flight. I just don't think it is a record that needs to be listed. --mfb (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Since he's the 2nd human in space and it marked the beginning of the crewed US presence in space, then it's relevant enough to be retained here. 192.228.223.193 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying Shepard's accomplishment is not relevant enough to be included - there are other bullet points that are legitimate "records". But a suborbital flight is not one. Npinguy (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

From Sub-orbital spaceflight page:

Flights which attain sufficient velocity to go into low Earth orbit, and then de-orbit before completing their first full orbit, are not considered sub-orbital. Examples of this include Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1, and flights of the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.

See it? 192.228.223.193 (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You are technically correct, but it's not relevant here. This is a list of records. Records are unique milestones. If Shepard's flight came first it would be a milestone and a record. Then Gagarin's full orbital flight would be yet another record. But by doing an orbital flight first, a suborbital flight was no longer a relevant milestone. There are zero new developments, accomplishments or risks needed to accomplish a suborbital flight that are not already covered by an orbital flight. Unlike, for instance, piloting the craft, and returning inside of it rather than via parachute, which are Shepard's real accomplishments. Npinguy (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The IP is technically correct, which in this case means correct. Gagarin's flight is not considered suborbital, Shepard's flight is considered suborbital. Kees08 (Talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay how about this for a proposal for the community: Let's change Gagarin's bulletpoint from "Person in orbit" to "person to make an orbital flight". That at least makes it clear that his accomplishment was more significant than Shepard's while keeping the token Shepard bullet point on account on American Insecurity about their Exceptionalism. Npinguy (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all when saying that "American Insecurity about their exceptionalism" you had effectively admitted that you're editing it just to suit your political views. The thing is Wikipedia has a strict neutrality of view policy in which biases are required to be reduced to a minimum. Now just for posterity Gagarin's flight record is disputed speaking of technicality since he bailed out of his spacecraft during the final phase of his spaceflight; if Charles Linbergh jumped out above France or just the ocean during his transatlantic journey the same would go on regarding the dispute of the completeness of the flight and therefore "person in orbit" is already the best way to express that while maintaining WP:NPOV. Finally due to your account's odd reactivation after a way long dormant period I believe that further investigation by admins is really needed to be conducted on you, just to ensure that you're not stealing other's account as in many cases particularly with regards to vandalism/PoV pushing. 202.190.130.169 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually you've got it the opposite - I'm editing to REMOVE politically-motivated phrasing. Why is "Gagarin is person in orbit" but "Shephard is person to make an orbital flight?" Change one or the other, but it's not consistent, and the difference in terminology expressly artificially inflates the qualities of the second flight. Consistency IS neutrality in this case. By the way , do you have ANY Proof about what you're suggesting regarding Gagarin's flight record? I did some rudimentary Googling and found nothing. You stalking my account history is a confusing distraction tactic. I am not a wikipedia editor. I haven't felt much need to submit edits and when I have I usually do so anonymously. In this case I chose to log in because I wanted continuity for my conversations, discussions, and edit. It's laughable that you would even bring that up when you are are not even writing this from an account. Get back on subject.Npinguy (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Your so-called inconsistency phrasing is because of Gagarin's technical violation of FAI rules back then since he bailed out during his final leg ; instead you chose to go around the bushes and hit the strawmen. Logging in to an account after 13 years of dormancy does really spooks anyone especially when editing abuses by compromising old accounts are commonplace. 202.190.130.169 (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

SpaceFactsBot Down Temporarily

User:SpaceFactsBot which updates the List_of_spaceflight_records#Total_human_spaceflight_time_by_country section, has suffered a hardware failure. Looks like the most recent backup is damaged too, so I'm going to have to redo a few of the recent fixes before it comes online again. Thanks everyone for your patience! Andrewpullin (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, been a busy time. I think I have recovered User:SpaceFactsBot to its original state. Please let me know if anyone notices problems. It will resume updating the article each night. Andrewpullin (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Fastest spacecraft relative to Earth outdated

It lists Juno at 73 km/s. I'm not sure if Juno ever held that record as Mercury in opposition has a relative velocity of about 75 km/s (MESSENGER has been in orbit 2011-2015), but anyway, now Parker Solar Probe has that record. Its last perihelion Sep 1 was close to opposition, so its relative speed should have been ~120 km/s (its first perihelion last year was faster than Juno, too). The problem: I don't see anyone giving a number for this new record. Should we remove the outdated record? Mention that it is outdated? --mfb (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Removed it for now. --mfb (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Farthest humans from Earth

I made an edit to the Apollo 13 article. Essentially, I believe the number for the record comes from Guinness World Records (not sure where they got the number from). An astrodynamicist reconstructed the trajectory and got a slightly different number. Not sure if we should change the number, have both number, add any detail like I have in the Apollo 13 article, etc. Just thought I would bring it up here for consideration. Kees08 (Talk) 16:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

John Young

@Wizardimps: Stop this please. As you can see there is an obvious need for clarification. The clarification has been in the article for a long time, at least three users want to keep it in recently. If you want to remove it seek consensus here first. I didn't see a real argument for the removal from you so far. You think it is not necessary, but the long discussions and reverts say otherwise. --mfb (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My question would be, for what reason to do only include "launch into orbit from the moon" by Glenn and don't include other similar type things about other astronauts? Glenn completed six spaceflights, period. No amount of "launches into orbit from the surface of the moon" will increase that number; not one and not 15 if he had made that many. The information isn't relevant, and seems to be included as a way to try to superficially inflate Young's (already impressive) space resume. Nobody has ever justified, in an encyclopedic sense, why that information is there. In a subsection listing Astronauts by spaceflights, there is literally no reason to sidenote somebody who left the surface of the moon and went into orbit there. Simply being on the moon means he's in the middle of a spaceflight. The list is spaceflights, not launches into orbit from celestial bodies. 69.160.196.254 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a rational argument to be made that "in space" can't include time on the surface of a celestial body, otherwise you could argue that everyone is in space. Is someone born on another planet "in a spaceflight"? What if they come to Earth? For the purposes of this article a spaceflight starts when a person leaves Earth and ends when they get back, so Young only has 6 spaceflights. But there's no *fundamental* reason that Earth should be said to be "not in space" while other bodies are. So, to make sure that people that might argue that a launch from the Moon is a separate spaceflight don't have the wrong idea, it's important to clarify that the number we're showing them *does not count* Young's departure from the moon. Making that clear *does not mean* that the article considers that launch a separate spaceflight, it means literally the opposite and it's frustrating that the people who keep removing that language don't seem to realize that we're all on the same page on that point.Astrofreak92 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

By that logic, or total lack thereof, anyone who landed on the Moon should have both their "flights" counted since they went from one celestial body to another. That would, of course, be ridiculous. The only reason then, that Young's is listed the way it is, is so it can somehow be, or appear to be, inflated to make him appear more accomplished. As is, the list does not require any special note about Young, or indeed any of the other people listed, as it's accepted that flying to and landing on the moon is part of the same "space flight." The list is for space flights, of which Young made an exact number and that number is given clearly. The rest is pointless and there's literally no valid or rational reason for its inclusion. 69.160.196.254 (talk) 05:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna add all the pilots who've achieved low-Earth orbit on this list, that'll be just as dumb as including Young's side note. 69.160.196.254 (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If you can't see a difference between an airplane flight and a launch from the Moon to Moon orbit then you should re-consider how much you can contribute to this discussion. I expect that we change the list to "most launches from surface to space" if people start living on Mars and launching from Mars to space in the future. If this will be planetary surfaces only or the surface of any object of relevant size: Who knows. --mfb (talk) 07:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Isn't this resolved by the source. The official NASA biography (which is linked through the site https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/young_john.pdf) states: "He is the first person to fly in space six times

from earth, and seven times counting his lunar liftoff." The site states: "This is the only version available from NASA." Alan Davidson (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Update to "most time in space" list

The list suggests that it hasn't been updated since November 2019. It definitely needs to be updated, as Luca Parmitano is now at 366 days, and would definitely be in the top 50. Aleksandr Skvortsov should be much higher as well. Christina Koch, however, would be just short of the list for now. --Poomfang ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 11:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, that the list has not been updated yet (or the one for the "Longest Single Flight by a Woman"). It it supposed to be updated when the person's mission is complete. The "Most Time in Space" table, for example, says "Travelers currently in space are ranked by total time in space of their completed missions only", not daily during their mission, so it's time to update it for the Expedition 61 crew who just landed. -- Wizardimps (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Jim Lovell

I saw that John Young is down as the first to be in lunar orbit twice but didn't Jim Lovell have that record already after his Apollo 8 and Apollo 13 flight? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.67.93 (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Lovell didn't orbit the moon on Apollo 13. He just flew around it on a free-return trajectory. Wizardimps (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We could add "flying to the Moon twice" as category, I guess. --mfb (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Error detected

There is definitively error in section 4.1 named "Total human spaceflight time by country". Total count is right, 563 persons - but we shall count 123 people (NOT 124) from USSR/Russia to have this number! 91.79.11.108 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Interplanetary probes

There should be a section on first time an agency sent an interplanetary probe (with or without the Moon). Less than 10 entities did so, which is less than those who sent people to LEO. 205.175.106.45 (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Only three space agencies and one company sent people to LEO so far. That list is the only "by country" we have here, most records are internationally, the first interplanetary flight is in the list (Luna 1). --mfb (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

First human spaceflight by country -> add companies?

Scaled Composites made suborbital spaceflights, SpaceX launched an orbital flight. The latter was paid for by the country's space agency but the development was private and the technology stays property of the company. Should we add these? Boeing should join the list soon, but apart from that it shouldn't grow much in the next years. --mfb (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Controlled powered flight

Much ado has been made of Ingenuity's rotary-wing flight on Mars, but is it really the first "controlled powered flight" from the surface of another body? Does Apollo 11 not count? -- Wizardimps (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The first controlled powered flight from another body was Surveyor 3 in April 1967. Its landing radar was confused by shiny rocks and the engine did not shut off, so it touched down and lifted back up again. It finally landed for good after another bounce. It was controlled and powered, but unintentional.

The second controlled powered flight from another body was Surveyor 6 in November 1967. As an engineering test, once it was finished with the mission, it fired up its engine and launched to another landing spot nearby. It was controlled and powered, and intentional.

The third controlled powered flight from another body was Apollo 11, the first powered flight controlled by a crew on board.

How to qualify Ingenuity? First rotary aircraft, first from Mars, first solar powered aircraft on another body, etc. But not the first controlled powered flight. -- Wizardimps (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

First take-off on another planet. First atmospheric flight outside Earth. First flight (outside Earth) not using rockets. --mfb (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Shenzhou 12

I have a proposed addition to the list of 'firsts'.

When Shenzhou 12 reaches orbit, it will mark the first time that an American, a Chinese, and a Russian/Soviet crewed spacecraft will be in orbit at the same time. There was a bit of research there (comparing the dates of crewed Shenzhou mission with the last Space Shuttle missions). AmigaClone (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"First time crewed spacecraft from three countries are in orbit simultaneously"? An article discussing this would be better than "I checked the launch dates". --mfb (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I like that description. The closest thing to an article that I have seen so far is a PDF from this link. http://www.spacefacts.de/english/flights.htm. It shows the takeoff and landing date in relationship to Earth of each crewed mission.

Skylab 4 and Soyuz 13 Could be "First time crewed spacecraft from two countries are in orbit simultaneously (non-docking)". AmigaClone (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Suborbital records

With the impending start of commercial crewed flights by Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic, a large number of potentially record-breaking people in terms of age and number of flights, seem poised to ba added to this page. Some pilots may be able to vastly exceed the number of flights achieved by orbital astronauts and training/health requirements are lower so some records may come to be dominated by suborbital flyers, which is controversial as many see orbital spaceflight as uniquely challenging. So far, because Virgin does not break the Karman Line and this article for the most part follows FAI standards we have not needed to add those stats but Blue will reach that altitude. Some suborbital records are already listed separately from orbital records, should we do this for all relevant records? If so, should we include flights following both the FAA and FAI standard with asterisks/notes for records stemming from those flights in the space between the two, or just those with the FAI standard? I say this because the FAI has considered lowering their standard to match the FAA and if we include both it obviates the need to overhaul the list in the future if the FAI does move forward with a change. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I prefer converting existing records to "orbital" where needed, and list suborbital records separately where useful. Duration, speed and altitude records should be safe, no spacewalks on suborbital flights, animals are already including suborbital flights, so we are mainly looking at "most spaceflights" and age records. In terms of maintenance, it's probably easier to include everything above 80 km but with a comment that only x flights were above 100 km. --mfb (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

So, once Inspiration 4 reaches orbit - provided the ten astronauts currently in orbit are either still in orbit, or have been replaced on a one to one basis, there would be a "Most people in orbit (non-docking)" entry? AmigaClone (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Largest number of different launch sites

For the purpose of this list are Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (formerly Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) considered to be one launch site? If not, there were 7 astronauts who launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Kennedy Space Center, and the Moon (3 sites). Alan B. Shepard Jr., John W. Young, Neil A. Armstrong, Charles "Pete" Conrad Jr., David R. Scott, Eugene A. Cernan, and Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin Jr. AmigaClone (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think they would be, the existing entry specifies "Kennedy Space Center" so CCSFS would be separate. Agree.

Population in space

FYI: An editor recently created the article People in space which is pretty much looking at records for the total number of people in space at any given time. I don't know if it's notable enough to consider merging into this article of lists, but it seems to me that if it's worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia then it should be here. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

My intent was to have a page that simply reported the current number of people in space. I submitted it during the record number because that's what made me think of its lack in this encyclopedia. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that page is compatible with the goals of an encyclopedia. The article content is transient by design. You could convert it to a timeline of people in space. --mfb (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

First to land on “hard ground”

Wouldn’t Joe Walker (in the X-15) be the first to land in a spacecraft on hard ground, not the cosmonauts on the Voskhod flight that came the following year? Llakais 21:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A good point. If eventually used (needs more editors points of view) this should go to Walker's second flight (X-15 Flight 90 on July 19, 1963, which passed the international space line, something he didn't do on his first of the three flights). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Llakais. What about Pavel Popovich of Vostok 4? It's not reported on either page that he parachuted from his capsule, and if not then he'd be the first to land with his spacecraft on hard ground. Do you have a source that confirms either? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Llakais Randy Kryn Lucky you, Anatoly Zak's Russian Space Web described that Six minutes later Popovich touched down 305 kilometers to the west. He saw a search plane in 20 minutes. Although Kamanin cited a post-flight report from Popovich about a rather uneventful landing, many years later, the cosmonaut revealed in an interview with the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine that after ejecting from the spacecraft and starting his parachute descent, he had struggled with very strong winds and barely escaped injury during a very rough touchdown. He then ran feverishly around the landing site and waved to the rescue plane in a fruitless effort to dissuade inexperienced rescue doctors from making dangerous and totally needless parachute jumps. After they had jumped anyway, Popovich frantically rushed to catch and fold their parachutes dragged mercilessly by the wind and attended at least one young military doctor with a bloodied face. In turn the source is "Novosti Kosmonavtiki (in Russian) (periodical), ed. I. Marinin, Moscow, (published bi-montly since 1991, later monthly)".71.14.221.114 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Good find, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Number of people in space simultaneously (on unrelated spaceflights)

When the spaceflights are unrelated and there is no docking, the number of people in space simultaneously is pure trivia. This is pretty clearly demonstrated by the necessity to add clarifiers about whether "in space" means "in orbit", "above 50 miles", or "above 100 km" for a bunch of such "records". I removed the trivia, but this was reverted on the grounds that there had been no discussion beforehand, so here we are. TompaDompa (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Posting your reasoning is not, by itself, sufficient discussion. Regular contributors to this page need to weigh in on whether they agree. Space population milestones are relevant to documenting the development of the human presence in space, if they're not listed here they won't be listed anywhere. Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Regular contributors to this page need to weigh in on whether they agree. That's not how it works; regular contributors to this page—of which I would argue there are none considering the sparsity of edits—are not gatekeepers of content whose approval needs to be acquired. When a WP:BOLD edit is reverted solely on the basis that it has not been discussed beforehand, a talk page discussion is started, and there are no replies a week later, it is entirely reasonable to interpret that as a WP:SILENT consensus. It is not necessary to wait for regular contributors to the page to weigh in on the discussion before reinstating an edit reverted for lack of discussion when there has been no objection to the substance of the edit and there has been plenty of time to weigh in on the discussion for anybody who is interested in doing so.

As for the substance of the edit, I would point out that if it is indeed true that if they're not listed here they won't be listed anywhere, this content constitutes WP:Original research that must be removed. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not mean they will not be listed anywhere at all, there are several sites that keep track of the current record and journalists and recordkeepers that have reported on previous record space populations. The records themselves are notable for that reason. I mean nowhere on Wikipedia where the information, which is as relevant as the copious information on demographic and population history for other localities that can be found in this encyclopedic source, can be found. As of right now, it makes more sense to talk about demographic milestones, even uncoordinated ones, as technical exploration achievements in the context of this page. When the demographics of space are sufficiently developed that they have their own page or the exact number of people in space is not regularly reported the general trend can be recorded in a "population history of space" page, but we are not yet in such a place.Astrofreak92 (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"Uncoordinated demographic milestone" is a pretty far cry from "spaceflight record" if you ask me. It's dubious if it's even within scope. I'll note that people in space was deleted, and one of the reasons that was brought up was that it's statistical trivia. TompaDompa (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

"People in space" attempted to track the individuals currently in space at a given time, which is transient by definition. The pro-deletion comments noted that time-independent information, like that found in the population milestones on this page, would be a different story and do merit inclusion in an encyclopedic source. Astrofreak92 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a removal reason. It's a record that is notable enough to be reported by our sources. The boundary of space isn't unambiguous and suborbital and orbital flights are different so of course we need that clarification. That's done for all records in one way or another. --mfb (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal. The records of how many people are in space simultaneously are interesting for keeping track how space travel is becoming more widespread and less rare. The deletions should be reverted. Grioghair (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Recently-born to reach space entries

I suggest removing this category. There is nothing special about being in it, the "records" keep getting broken simply from time passing on and new people going to space. Earliest-born to reach space is different, these categories will become unbeatable in the not so distant future. --mfb (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. If someone disagrees, please discuss here. --mfb (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Lunar south pole region

The lunar south pole region is from 80S to 90S latitude. There is an entry that claims that India made the first soft landing in the region. However the latitude of the landing location is 69S. So is this claim valid? If anything, IM-1's Odysseus landed a little bit south of 80S, it would be the first to have soft landed in lunar south pole region. 69.181.229.133 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)