Talk:List of astronauts by year of selection

Just a quick note

"Astronaut" is in the US what Russians call "cosmonaut", what Chinese call "Taikonauts" etc.... Is this a bias?

(response to apparently unsigned query) In articles it would be considered Bias to call Cosmonauts, Taikonauts, and Astronauts by their incorrect name. Use of the Neutral term 'Crew' I have found works well in articles such as the International Space Station. When referring to unique individuals, the individual terms should be used. For example, a NASA Astronaut, and a Russian Cosmonaut were on the ISS as a skeleton crew after the NASA shuttle disaster. The Crew of 2 performed limited tasks on the ISS during that time. The Crew of the ISS was expanded to 6, and after launch of the MLM in 2012, an extra crew member will be able to join the existing crew, making 7 in total. European Space Agency Crew members and Americans are normally called Astronauts. Soviet Bloc Crew are normally called Cosmonauts.

In regards to this articles title, a single accessible word has been chosen by it's author(s) as the word most commonly understood by it's readers. This is the English Wikipedia article and so the word Astronaut is used as it is the most easily understood one word term for the target readers. On the Russian Wikipedia article here the word Cosmonaut is used for the entire list including Neil Armstrong, as it is an article for Russian-speaking readers.Penyulap _talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of images in this article

Yuri Shargin and Ilan Ramon

The use of randomly selected images degrades the quality of this article, and / or the use individual editor's favorite Astronaut's image is not possible in this article, it violates WP:Neutrality, this article lists more than 300 individuals and if all 300+ images were included in order to keep it Neutral, it would cause technical problems for some browsers and users with slow internet connections. The use of a limited number of images according to a logical or popular order is possible, such as first man and first woman in space, first person on the moon, and so forth.

Please state if you want to keep or remove these two images. Penyulap _talk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove These two do not belong because they are not especially notable (in a neutral sense), despite Ramon's death on the Columbia (WP:MEMORIAL). It would make sense to include three historically noteable: Gagarin (first in space), Tereshkova (first woman) and Armstrong (first on the Moon). A fourth would be the first person on Mars, when and if that ever happens. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TFNG: NASA Group 8

Anyone got a source for Group 8 being called TFNG? That's not usually what FNG means. Whisperednumber 12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it until someone gets a source for that.Whisperednumber 12:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Geez, give me more than four minutes to respond! Group 8 was called TFNG, for "Thirty Five New Guys". Yes, it also stands for the military-based obscenity but that was the polite term. See Astronautix.com, Mike Mullane interview, class patch at CollectSpace.com, etc. -- Wizardimps 07:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Malaysian program information

With all due respect to Rillian, whom I really do respect and think is a great editor, I don't agree with the removal of the Malaysian information, nor with the terminology of "Spaceflight Participant" in this list, and here is why: This is a list of astronauts, and the positions they were selected for, and trained for, i.e. Mission Specialist, Pilot, etc. It is not a list of the position they held when they flew. Now obviously Malaysia is not training these people to be "Spaceflight participants", and there are many reliable sources that verify Shukor was a full-fledged astronaut, not a spaceflight participant, NASA used that term because Shukor did not specifically fly as an astronaut position for his flight, not that he wasn't an astronaut (think John Glenn's last flight). Also, for new classes, such as Canada's first class of astronauts, the X Prize, and other classes throughout this article, commentary is given to help the reader understand the item of interest. Malaysia's new program obviously deserves a mention, just as the others have had. I'm reinstating the section; Shukor is a fully trained astronaut, who was selected as an astronaut, trained as an astronaut, but just happened to fly not having any official astronaut duties. That doesn't make him any less of an astronaut, and for the purposes of this list, Spaceflight participant is an incorrect term. Ariel♥Gold 05:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The structure of this page (which is titled List of Astronauts after all) is 1. Date + Group Name + Agency followed by 2. a list of people in that group followed on some instances by 3. commentary of notable items related to the group (e.g. everyone on this group flew in space at least twice). The only times we list titles/ranks/positions is when Item 2 (the list of people) is very long and some of the people where chosen to train for specific roles, e.g. Pilots versus Mission Specialists on the Space Shuttle. Regarding commentary, as this is a list and not an article per se, any commentary should be very brief and link to articles that provide the details. Since the Malaysian group all trained for the same position, no title is needed. I've made some edits that follow these practices and appreciate your comments. Rillian 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Shukor is an astronaut by all definition of the word, so I'm not sure why you felt that your first statement had to say "it is a list of astronauts, after all". As for removing the fact that this was the first group selected by the Malaysian Astronaut group, see 1983 in this list, and the exact same type of thing was done with the first group of Canadian candidates, so I don't see how it is unreasonable to put a note saying this was the first group of candidates selected for the Malaysian space program. Correct me if I'm wrong, and please don't take this negatively, but you seem to have an issue with acknowledging the Malaysian astronaut program, and Shukor himself as astronauts (which is what the word Angkasawan means). I'm not biased one way or another, but I do think it does the country, program, and the participants a disservice to deny this recognition across multiple articles. ~*Shrug*~ Ariel♥Gold 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My point about this being a list of astronauts is that everyone on the list is presumed to an astronaut. That's why the list doesn't repeat the word "Astronaut" in front of the groups of names -- it's redundant. As to the use of the word Angkasawan -- that's a Malaysian word for astronaut and this is the English Wikipedia. We don't use Raumfahrer with the German astronauts on this list.Rillian 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, okay I see what you're saying, I was confused, lol. Sorry! Ariel♥Gold 13:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, a lot of the commentary and citations you had added were defending the stance that the people in the Angkasawan group are real astronauts. This had been discussed extensively on the Angkasawan and Shukor Talk pages and addressed on those articles and I don't think it necessary to include that type of commentary on this list. Rillian 13:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't have either one of those pages on my watch list, so I'm not sure what discussions have been going on, but I know that there was a ton of edit warring over the issue, so I added the references so it was clear that he was an astronaut, even if he has not yet flown as one. No big deal, thanks Rillian! Ariel♥Gold 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercury 13

Why aren't the Mercury 13 on this list? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because they were not "selected for training for a human spaceflight program" as it specifies in the first sentence. This was the brainchild of a doctor in charge of the medical testing, which NASA never took seriously. Though these women flew propellor-driven (subsonic) aircraft, they had absolutely no experience flying high-accelleration supersonic aircraft, which NASA considered essential. (Try reading Mercury 13. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cosmonauts

Why are cosmonauts listed here as they are not astronauts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.28.128 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In English, cosmonaut is a synonym for astronaut. See Astronaut for more details. Rillian (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - in English these are separate words, and neither is a synonym for the other. Cosmonauts are those who have travelled on the Soviet / Russian space programme whilst astronauts are those on the US. This is actually discussed in the Wikipedia article you have referenced. The exception to this recognised duality is the US where astronaut is assumed to be universal (pardon the almost pun). It would seem this is another article suffering from the very common Wikipedia US-centric view. I would suggest the article is split into two seperate aricles: astronauts & cosmonauts. At the absolute minimum some reference is needed to the correct description of those on the Soviet / Russian space programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.28.128 (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

They certainly are synonyms in English. As the opening of the article states "astronaut or cosmonaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft." The more common of the two words in English documents is astronaut and can be applied to all people trained by by human spaceflight programs. As the Astronaut article explains, there is a convention (but not a universal one) that people employed by the Russian space program are referred to as cosmonauts in English texts. However, the more general term is astronaut. If there were a picture of Neil Armstrong, Norm Thagard, Jean-Pierre Haigneré, and Viktor Mikhaylovich Afanasyev, the caption "four astronauts" would be fine while the caption "one astronaut, one astronaut who also flew on a Russian spacecraft and could be called a cosmonaut, one spationaut, and one cosmonaut" would be needlessly wordy and unnecessary as those words are synonyms. Rillian (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted previously Cosmonauts and astronaut are synonyms only in the US whereas other countries recognise the difference. Why can this use not be acknowledged in this article, which is available to the world and not just the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the US Wiki, this is the English-language Wiki. In English, the most common word for a professional space traveler is "astronaut". When naming articles, we seek to use the most common, most inclusive, most descriptive terms, hence the title "List of astronauts by selection". Rillian (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"we seek to use the most common." But not the correct one? Very strange.

"we seek to use.. most descriptive terms." Which is not always astronaut. For people on Soviet / Russian space programmes this would be cosmonaut.

"This is not the US Wiki." Then why is only US usage being used here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citations for your claim that only "US usage is being used". Rillian (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Use of cosmonaut in the UK [1], [[2]], [3]
• Use of cosmonaut in New Zealand [4], [5],
• Reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this from New Zealand [6]
• Another reference to seperate US and Soviet / Russian usage, this time from Australia [7]
• Use of cosmonaut for non-Soviet / non-Russian but who travelled on their programmes [8]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.23 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 December 2008

The majority of your references demonstrate that when referring specifically to Russian astronauts, the term cosmonaut is sometimes used by English media. That's not in question. The request for citations was in relation to your claim that the use of the word "astronaut" as a general category for space travelers is "US specific" and by naming this article "List of Astronauts", the title is demonstrating a US bias. Contrary to your claim, here's a example of British media using astronaut generically to refer to any professional space traveler [9] and here's one from South Africa [10]. Rillian (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I do not dispute that astronaut is used by some for all space travellers. But the fact remains that its use is effectively universal in the US whilst other English speaking countries recognise the difference between cosmonaut and astronaut: this is supported by the citations given. There is no reason which I can see for this dual usage to be ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.22.238 (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Many US sources recognize the difference and so does this article. This English article uses the most common English collective noun for a group of space travelers as the Title, but then clearly and consistently refers to Russian flyers throughout the article as cosmonauts. The "dual usage" is most certainly not ignored. This article is a list of all astronauts, regardless of which country or space program they were part of. Rillian (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Group 2

This list is missing Chinese Group 2. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yelena Dobrokvashina

Some Yelena Dobrokvashina info, if anyone wants to write an article... http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Near-cosmonaut_outlines_why_few_women_in_Russias_space_program_999.html -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New article: List of Commercial Astronauts?

This article has had a lot of "information creep" recently, good information but outside the scope of what this article is supposed to have, which as stated "this article only lists professional astronauts". The problem is that there are a lot of non-professional astronauts in the article now. By "non-professional" I mean those who were chosen to have a career as an astronaut (in the generic sense), not those who were chosen to fly a single mission, whether that was as a Payload Specialist on the Space Shuttle, an Intercosmos flight aboard a Soyuz, or something similar.

For example, the article lists these (not intended to be inclusive):

• the 1954-68 X-15 pilots, some of whom did get astronaut wings but were not chosen to fly in space
• the 1976 and 1978 Intercosmos groups, who were chosen by their governments to fly a single mission
• the 1978 ESA Spacelab Payload Specialists group, who were chosen as Payload Specialists (and outside the scope of this article)
• the 1979 and 1982 Manned Spaceflight Engineer group, who were chosen by the US military as Payload Specialists
• the 1985 ISRO Insat Group, chosen by the Indian government to be Payload Specialists
• the 1989 ATLAS Payload Specialists
• the 1997 Israeli Shuttle Payload Specialist group
• the 2006 Angkasawan Group, chosen to be Malaysia's first space flier on a single mission to the International Space Station
• etc.

I think these should be broken out into a separate article, maybe List of Payload Specialists. I know the name is Shuttle-specific, but we could define it for the purposes of the article as "someone who was selected to train and fly for a single mission, regardless of whether that person flew again". That covers all US and international Shuttle Payload Specialist selections, all Intercosmos groups, and any other international (non-US/non-Russian) groups. For instance, Marc Garneau was originally selected by Canada as a Payload Specialist in 1983 but later assigned to NASA as an international Mission Specialist in 1992, so he would only appear on this page with his NASA group and not with his PS group.

I'm also not quite sure what to do about the Commercial Astronaut groups. Virgin Galactic, for example, has selected a number of pilots, but they're professional pilots who will enter space, not professional astronauts. Similarly, the 2002 Canadian Arrow group was selected for a similar purpose but their project didn't succeed. A new List of Commercial Astronauts maybe? People selected to fly SpaceX's Dragon or Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser, on the other hand, will be not only piloting the spacecraft but also living and working in space aboard the International Space Station, so they'd be both "professional" and "commercial".

The bottom of the article, under the Comments section, is just a mess and most of it doesn't belong here. However, there is some information (like Teachers in Space, Citizens in Space, Astronauts for Hire, and others) that could get lumped with the Commercial page. --Wizardimps (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is really getting out of hand. If nobody has any objection after a couple of weeks, then I will split this page up into the following pages:

• List of professional astronauts by year of selection (for those chosen by a nation-sponsored group to train and fly on any mission in the program for which they work)
• List of test pilot astronauts by year of selection (for those flying research or military aircraft - not specifically-designed spacecraft - capable of reaching the "space" altitude, or assigned to military space programs such as MOL, Dyna-Soar, and X-15)
• List of guest astronauts by year of selection (for those chosen to train and fly on a specific nation-sponsored mission, such as NASA's Payload Specialists and those flying under Russia/USSR's Intercosmos)
• List of commercial astronauts by year of selection (for those chosen to train and fly on a private commercial spacecraft as a crewmember and not passenger, e.g. Astronauts4Hire, Virgin Galactic pilots, Canadian Arrow, etc. - see Private spaceflight)
• List of tourist astronauts by year of selection (for those who have paid for the opportunity to fly aboard a nation-sponsored or private spacecraft as a passenger, e.g. AXE promotion, Virgin Galactic passengers, spaceflight participants, etc. - see Space tourism)

My suggestion is to have this page (List of astronauts by year of selection) be the default page for the professional astronaut list, and at the top have links to the other categories. I'm looking for a better name than "test pilot astronaut" since there really is no common term for them. There's also no term for "guest astronaut" that encompasses what I have here, but I think it's a reasonable compromise. Comments, suggestions? -- Wizardimps (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article is "List of Astronauts by year of selection" and the article Astronaut defines that term as "An astronaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft." That would imply anyone not trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft should be removed from this article. After that, if the article is still too long, I would certainly support creating sub-articles. However, one benefit of the current article is readers can easily see the rise and fall of astronaut training activity as they scroll through the years. Rillian (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of crap creep in here. While the term astronaut is sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists, and tourists, this article only lists professional astronauts. is what it says on the label and we're getting people listed here who won perfume company competitions for trips on as-yet-unbuilt craft. Clearly these people are not astronauts, and even if they ever do fly - a very long shot, if you ask me - they certainly won't be professional astronauts. If Virgin Galactic ever gets motoring, there will be professional astronauts flying the thing, and passengers, who won't be professional astronauts but just people strapped in for the ride. --Pete (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

McDivitt

The article says "McDivitt was later Apollo Program Director and became the first general officer and would have been either the prime LM Pilot or backup commander for Apollo 14, but left NASA due to a conflict between Alan Shepard and Deke Slayton." Was the conflict between Shepard and Slayton or between McDivitt and the other two? It is probably the latter, but it isn't clear. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tabular Format Suggestion

This article may benefit from a modification to a Tabular format, similar to other "List" based articles in Wikipedia. For ease of readability, scanning, and space compression, a full tabular format may be preferred by readers. Also previous discussion points regarding the inclusion of photos may better be accommodated. SquashEngineer (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of astronauts by year of selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524044812/http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=1858&gid=154 to http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=1858&gid=154
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510215546/http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-adds-two-pilots-to-commercial-flight-team/ to http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-adds-two-pilots-to-commercial-flight-team/

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) 09:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of astronauts by year of selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230225623/http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/spaceflight/31/mse.html to http://epizodsspace.testpilot.ru/bibl/spaceflight/31/mse.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028130926/http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/mm/Weekend/Hotnews/20071027111145/Article/index_html to http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/mm/Weekend/Hotnews/20071027111145/Article/index_html

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) 07:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file ESA Astronaut Class 2009 patch Vincent Gibaud.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file ESA Astronaut Class 2009 patch Vincent Gibaud.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cross-article editing

@Hawkeye7: Might be easy to bring some information from your excellent work on the groups over to this article (at least citations maybe?) Just a thought, might be too hard to integrate based on changes some folks desire in conversations above. Kees08 (Talk) 07:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Association of Spaceflight Professionals

ISS veteran KARI Astronaut Soyeon Yi is a member of this organization, which has been well-covered and received NASA funding for a series of manned spaceflights. Blanket removal of referenced content is highly discouraged. Note the original diff over six years ago by @Ilmarinens:. ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  13:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your edit comments ("neither contentious nor added by banned users"): the correct diffs are here: 1 2 3 4 etc. All of those generous contributors turned out to be socks of U:Altman, who operated them here and in Wikimedia Commons to shine light on Altman, his projects and colleagues.

The "well-covered" aspect has been examined extensively in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Altman and the talkpages of the concerned articles, where the consensus was the quality of sources was very low.

As for whether the organization deserves five (!) mentions in this article, it may we worth waiting until it actually sends anyone to space. I am removing the text again. Ariadacapo (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm reversing your latest vandalism. Note the recent discussion on Wikidata around the subject and the references that you removed. Any further vandalism will be reported to admins.

The diffs you point out came more than six years after initial inclusion of the content. Those edits were contributed by User:llmarinens, who is neither sock nor banned user. The correct, original diffs are found here: (2010, 2011, 2013, Comments). Having stood intact for more than six years, consensus shows that the content was anything but contentious.

The more recent diffs in question merely updated the existing content with valid supporting references, references that were also blanket deleted in the articles on the subjects themselves in what looks to be blatant targeting and vandalism by none other than yourself, as pointed out here and here. As stated here, a full paragraph of high-quality references: publications including Nature, Discover, Popular Science, Aviation Week, CBS News, Time Magazine, and more were suspiciously deleted just prior to nominating the subject for deletion. Removing valid, referenced content is in violation of policy. Furthermore, the straw-man argument of references from the articles themselves is completely irrelevant to the full list of references you just removed from this article.

Regarding sending anyone to space: As mentioned, KARI Astronaut Soyeon Yi is a member of the organization. She has been to the ISS. The references further demonstrate that NASA has funded the organization for a series of manned spaceflights. Yet, whether or not any particular individual who has been trained for spaceflight actually goes to space is immaterial for inclusion to this list. It is not a list of space travelers: that list is here. This is a list of those who have trained for spaceflight. Not all astronauts have the chance to fly to space for a multitude of reasons, including one so simple and straight-forward as the vehicles not yet being flight ready and operational, as in this case. As of 2013, 8.8% haven't yet gone to space, and the percent who haven't gone up has increased over time and has been influenced by number of people trained versus number retired, number of countries involved and the number of people changed out in the ISS each flight. Today, the number of astronauts who haven't gone up is well over 200. . Imagine removing that many people from this article. If spaceflight experience is the criteria for inclusion, then much of this list has to go, including such contemporary and prominent examples as astronauts Yvonne Cagle, Deke Slayton, Duane Graveline, Curt Michel, Edward Givens, Philip K Chapman, Anthony Llewllyn, John Bull, Sergei Zhukov, and many more. For this very reason, we have the List of space travelers as an entirely separate page.

As stated in the introduction: For a list of those who have flown to space, see List of space travelers by name and This is a list of astronauts by year of selection: people selected to train for a human spaceflight program. This includes national space programs and private industry programs which train and/or hire their own professional astronauts. As demonstrated by the references and more than six years of consensus, the material meets sufficient criteria for inclusion. Your overarching deletion of valid, referenced content may well constitute WP:BLPCOI, in addition to attempted hijacking of consensus by posting inaccurate information in regards to the original diffs. Your statements thus far constitute no more than a string of straw-man arguments aimed to distract from the material itself. The subject is both prominent and well-established in the commercial spaceflight industry.

An entire section of referenced content removed

The world's first commercial astronaut corps, the Association of Spaceflight Professionals was awarded funding for its first series of manned spaceflight missions through the NASA Flight Opportunities Program in March 2012. Several million dollars have been allocated for detailed spectroscopic analysis of high-altitude noctilucent cloud formations on suborbital flights using rapidly reusable, task-and-deploy space-planes. The organization's commercial astronauts are vetted through a selection process modeled after the NASA Astronaut Corps, incorporating guidance and direction from a selection panel of veteran NASA astronauts and astronaut trainers. Many of its members serve as astronaut trainers themselves; several have interviewed as finalists in national space agency astronaut candidate selection campaigns. One has previously completed an orbital mission to the International Space Station.

The organization has been featured in Nature, Discover Magazine, Time Magazine, Popular Science, New Scientist, Parabolic Arc, Aviation Week and Space Technology, on Space.com,, Discovery News,, in the Sydney Morning Herald, KurzweilAI, PCMag, Digital Trends, in books on next-generation technologies and the emerging spaceflight industry, in radio interviews on the future of spaceflight including The Space Show and NPR Morning Edition, and received extensive international press coverage following the announcement of its first funded flight contract.

References

Don't miss the collapsible refs above.

As mentioned, the subject is both prominent and well established in the commercial spaceflight industry... (I've followed the field for years) Netdragon (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I take your concerns seriously. I will respond in a few days, since I am currently busy at work. Before that however, may you please read the WP:Vandalism page, especially the section "what is not vandalism" ? I am not a vandal. Like everyone here, you are expected to assume good faith. I’d love to discuss the quality of the sources you bring back, but I’m only going to do it in a cordial, respectful discussion. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Having stood intact for more than six years, consensus shows that the content was anything but contentious." No, that just shows that editors at the time did not edit the article. Six years ago, I commented that this page was getting too full of what I considered to be groups outside the scope of the article, which was "professional astronauts" (see Talk:List_of_astronauts_by_year_of_selection#New_article:_List_of_Commercial_Astronauts? earlier on this page). A private group or company which self-selects people and puts them through some sort of training program does not necessarily make those trainees astronauts. I notice, for example, that the vast majority of the references you list are from 2010-2014, and a project receiving money from NASA for research does not make the project participants astronauts, no matter what group they belong to, what they call themselves, who does the training, or who's in the group. --Wizardimps (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

What qualifies you is first being an "astronaut candidate", then being selected, then two years of training. How To Become An Astronaut. Also mentioned in that article: "After graduating, many astronauts are not assigned to a flight for years.". Ariadacapo comments below make sense and I'll look into the bold statements Ariadacapo outlined and get back to you both. Netdragon (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

No, what qualifies you is NOT first becoming an "astronaut candidate", that is NASA-specific terminology. They have applicants, and then when you're selected you become a candidate, and then when you complete your training, you are a NASA astronaut. ESA uses the same training flow for their astronauts as NASA does, as ESA candidates are selected by ESA and then they join their NASA counterparts in Houston for training, at the end of which all are eligible for flight assignment. If I were to call myself an "astronaut candidate" and complete an "astronaut training program" that was set up by myself in my living room and lasted two years of doing nothing but Kerbal Space Program, I don't get to call myself an astronaut. Until someone who was "selected" and "trained" by a private company actually gets hired to fly in space as a direct result of the training they had received from that company, then none of them should be included here. But by all means, start a page for "List of companies that provide private space training" or something, that would be a much more appropriate place than this page. --Wizardimps (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You mis-quoted me (probably by accident). The actual statement was "What qualifies you is first being an "astronaut candidate", then being selected, then two years of training". Regarding your "start a page", you need to check the intro of the article: ""This includes national space programs and private industry programs which train and/or hire their own professional astronauts.". Netdragon (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Netdragon, everyone here "checked the intro of the article". What is at stake is: who says ASP’s members are astronauts? Are we receiving a quality secondary source that comments on the level of training? Ariadacapo (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A few examples I already found so far relating to ASP: Project PoSSUM is an ASP project that received funding from NASA "to conduct detailed spectroscopic analysis of high-altitude noctilucent cloud formations on suborbital flights using rapidly reusable, task-and-deploy space-planes." Its principal investigator is ASP Vice President & COO Jason Reimuller (refs 3-11, direct quotes from NASA in 7, 8, 9, 10; Nature ref. 18). ASP member Erik Seedhouse is a Canadian space agency Top 30 finalist and astronaut trainer with a long line of publications (ref. 41). ASP member Jose Hurtado is a geologist and astronaut trainer as part of the NASA Desert RATS program. (2)(3)(4)(5) Netdragon (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

This is mostly original research, we end up looking into the resumes of some members. What we would like to see is a secondary source that comments on the level of training provided by ASP. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Discover Magazine talks about the level of training that Astronauts4Hire, now ASP (per CSF) provides a description of the training Big Idea: We're Looking for a Few Good Astronauts Netdragon (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Astronauts­4Hire’s initial program, which lasts a few weeks and runs $10,000 per person, is a far cry from the two years of grueling training given to NASA recruits" is about the only information we get about the training from that article. Ariadacapo (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Not the only thing. Before the part you quoted contained details of the methods (centrifuge and parabolic flights). It's also followed by "We will work out agreements with major companies to train at their facilities and get certified to fly on their vehicles". Netdragon (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

And in the 8 years since the article was published in July 2011, how many "agreements with major companies to train at their facilities and get certified to fly on their vehicles" has A4H/ASP announced? In 8 years, has a single person completed training and been certified to fly on spacecraft from SpaceX, Boeing, Bigelow, Virgin, Blue Origin, or any other company currently or formerly in existence? Can you truly call it "astronaut training" if nobody who has been trained is considered an astronaut (other than those who may have gotten trained elsewhere and actually flown)? --Wizardimps (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the ASP belongs here or not. What I take issue with is that bold statements made that are not supported by any quality source. I see several important statements, explicit or implied, in the disputed text:

* ASP is "the world's first commercial astronaut corps"

* ASP received funding from NASA

* ASP had a series of manned spaceflight missions funded by NASA

* ASP is somehow associated with carrying out those "detailed spectroscopic analysis of high-altitude noctilucent cloud formations on suborbital flights using rapidly reusable, task-and-deploy space-planes"

* ASP’s "commercial astronauts are vetted through a selection process modeled after the NASA Astronaut Corps"

* Many of ASP’s members serve as astronaut trainers themselves

We don’t need 51 sources to support those statements. All we need is two or three good-quality secondary sources. But when one examines the provided coverage, there is nothing to find. Take the space.com article, for example: it mentions A4H/ASP in the scope of testing "space beer" in a parabolic flight funded in part by a beer company. Where is the evidence for the statements above? There are abstracts from research papers which are seemingly completely unrelated. Magazine editors excited about space beer. We have a ton of sources from blogger.com, from Slideshare, from MailChimp. And even archive.org copies of A4H/ASP’s own website (!). What I’d like to see instead is secondary, high-quality coverage. Ariadacapo (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ariadacapo, I'm not a fan of bold statements so I'll look through the references and see which of those statements are supported and get back to you or remove unsupported statements myself if I can't find corroboration online. I agree considering the number of references, though considering many are good-quality, some weeding out may be in order since it's many more than needed. I'll look through and get back on both points and also see if I can find addt'l secondary references. I know this way is a lot more work, but I prefer editing content rather than just deleting if there's underlying merit so I'm willing to do the work. Give me some days Netdragon (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And also see if you can find some references that are current. I think the most recent one was from 2015, and things have changed a lot since then (like even the A4H name). --Wizardimps (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I tagged the unsourced key statements accordingly. Ariadacapo (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look this weekend. I put some examples I found in the convo above with WizardImps Netdragon (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have flagged this section due my concerns regarding its notability and alignment with Wikipedia's content as I've found it challenging to locate sources that aren't self-published to substantiate the information presented. It may be beneficial to consider either removing or significantly reworking this section to ensure it meets guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. askeuhd (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge from List of astronauts by name

List of astronauts by name lists all the same people. Having two lists of the same thing makes them more difficult to maintain, illustrated by the fact that this list is tagged as being in need of updating and the other one isn't. A sortable table can be used to list by name or by year depending on what the reader clicks on, as well as by other attributes of interest. -- Beland (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

They are actually two different topics, and I'd guess most readers have no idea sortable tabs exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)