Talk:List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents/Archive 1

Suggest inclusion of astronaut Ed Givens

A notable omission on this page seems to be astronaut Ed Givens, who died in a car crash while an active NASA astronaut. He was not in an active training vehicle at the time of death, but nevertheless is considered a "Fallen Astronaut" of that era, and is the only Apollo-era astronaut fatality to be missing. It would seem incomplete not to find him a place somewhere on this page, even if only as an "also." EdgesAmongs (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a space accident or incident though? I don't think it matches the article's definition in the lead.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, it doesn't really seem to belong here. --Craigboy (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths during second N1 launch

Where this number (~100) come from? I didn't manage to find any information about a single fatality during that explosion of N1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.94.62.1 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the previous launch, and the size of the vehicle it's incredibly unlikely that the Russians would have put people in harms way like that, and I too know of no such record of deaths. I have therefore removed this as it is unreferenced.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ground accidents

If you move ground accidents you had better move Apollo 1 too which is just silly. And all the training AIRPLANE crashes. Please we don't need another page. Rmhermen 23:15, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Neither of the launchpad accidents mentioned involved a crewed spacecraft, unlike Apollo 1... This material was originally expanded from the Astronaut page. Maybe calling it "Astronaut Deaths" or something would clarify? Rlandmann 10:23, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why should it need it be restricted to astronauts when ground crew, in fact, have suffered the majority of the casualties related to manned space flight? Rmhermen 13:40, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Really? That's an interesting claim. When have ground crew been killed in connection with a human spaceflight launch? --Rlandmann 03:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

March 19, 1981 during a Shuttle Dry Countdown Demonstration Test in preparation for STS-1. Some reports say 2 and some reports say 3 ground crew died from lack of oxygen when they entered the Columbia's engine area that had been purged with nitrogen. Rusty 20:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why Apollo 1 would even be considered a ground accident instead of a training accident, unless it is merely out of respect for the dead, which is not what an encyclopedia should necessarily do when trying to be factual. The fire was almost a month prior to the planned launch, and was not even named "Apollo 1" until well after the accident. And they were in the capsule training. 70.153.99.149 14:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It is in the training accidents section. There is no ground accidents section at all in the article. There is a section for "ground crews", that is, not astronauts. Rmhermen 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. But the article's first section, Space Fatalities, goes at length considering scenarios whether Apollo 1 and an X-15 flight should be counted among the space fatalities, and that is what I thought the poster above was referring to. That being said, I don't understand why the article proper would even entertain the idea that Apollo 1 represents a space fatality, even hypothetically. 70.153.99.149 21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Uncle was Albert Treib who died during the construction of pad 39B. With the great rush to get the Apollo launch pads ready in time they had to bypass normal safety procedures. Going to work on a giant steel structure with a lightning storm in the area was either very stupid or very patriotic. What would you have done had your boss asked you to volunteer to work on a stormy day in order to meet the greatest deadline ever put forth by mankind? BTreib

ICBM accidents

Are we now going to start including ICBM accidents as well? The R-16 of the Nedelin disaster wasn't a space launch vehicle. --Rlandmann 03:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. At this point in history (and even more so in the 1960s) ICBMs and space launchers are pretty well connected. I'm unsure of the lineage of the R-16 with respect to launch vehicles, but if the first test launch of the R-7 had been a disaster, would it be listed on this page? Maybe splitting off the launch disasters into a Rocket Disasters page would make sense. Rocketry is not inherant in spaceflight.

Agreed that booster and ICBM development are/were very closely bound up, but there are still many ICBMs (like the R-16) that have no direct relationship to any booster, and some (few!) boosters that are not derived from ICBMs. If the first launch of an R-7 had been a disaster, I would still argue that it wasn't a space-related accident, since spaceflight was not what the R-7 programme was about at that point... In any case, I don't think there are any actual incidents where it's unclear whether it was a booster or an ICBM involved in an accident. If someone can think of one, I guess we'll all work out what to do with it then! --Rlandmann 23:08, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was initially reported as a space-related incident (a Mars probe launch), and probably contributed to the 'Lost Cosmonaut' theory. It should be at least addressed as a mistake. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If ICBM accidents are included, then the August 9, 1965 Titan II silo complex 373-4 accident in Searcy, Arkansas should be included. 53 contractors died when a fire started in the silo during maintenance work. The missile was in the silo, but the warhead had been removed. The probable cause was a welders torch igniting hydraulic fluid. The thick smoke in the confines of the silo killed most of the workers. There were 2 survivors out of the work crew. Here is a link to an interview with one of the survivors http://www.techbastard.com/missile/titan2/silo_fire_survivor.php. Here is a link to a full account of the accident http://www.techbastard.com/missile/titan2/accident_373-4.php. 15.251.201.71 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its engines were a competing design for the russian space program was it not?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0179.shtml "In fact, the early flights of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin in the USSR as well as those of Explorer I and John Glenn in the US were all conducted using modified ballistic missiles. The primary Soviet launch vehicle of the period was the R-7 rocket, modified versions of which are still used even today for most Russian space flights. The R-7 was originally developed as an ICBM under the direction of Sergei Korolev, the Soviet Union's pre-eminent rocket designer of the day. The R-7 successfully completed a number of test flights between 1957 and 1959, including launching the first two artificial satellites. While only four examples of the R-7 were ever deployed as ballistic missiles from 1960 to 1968, the same basic design has remained in use throughout the Russian space program. Modern variants of the R-7 continue to launch satellites as well as manned Soyuz flights, and the type had achieved a success rate of nearly 98% in over 1,600 launches by the year 2000."

Just a little FYI ... had someone raise the point in an argument using WP as a source that the Soviet space program was 'dramatically less safe' then the US counterpart due to the Nedelin case. I would suggest that if you're going to include ICBM failures you need to look very thoroughly at the history books and decide on very clear boundaries because not only is there the disaster mentioned above but there were submarine accidents with missiles too ... on both sides of the Cold War.Senor Freebie (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICBMs are definitely space vehicles (they cross the Kármán line). They are suborbital, but so is VSS Enterprise. I don't think excluding them is justified. Sharpfang (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial accidents

What about industrial accidents related to space programs. Like the 6 Indian just killed at while Dhawan Space Center while testing/transporting/loading solid rocket fuel? Rmhermen 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I have added details on above incident as it occurred within Space Centre so belongs here. There is at least one more Indian fatality from another event but details like date and location are not there, here is an excerpt describing it from Page 99, Chapter: The Growing Years of book 'ISRO A Personal History' by R Aravamudan.

And then there were the accidents which occurred during the manufacture of rocket hardware and devices. The most tragic was a fatal accident in the RFF during the proof pressure testing of a rocket casing on the shop floor. Due to our inexperience, we set up a pneumatic pressure test rig instead of the safer hydraulic set-up. The casing was subjected to very high pressures due to erroneous gauging. This resulted in the parts of the case dislodging and the debris hitting an operator who died instantly. Two others were struck by the pressure wave and lost their eyesight.

Ohsin (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adams

I have moved the paragraph about Michael Adams and the X-15 crash from the Training Accidents section to the In-flight accidents. He died while earning his astronaut wings flying an X-15 operational mission. It was also a suborbital flight above 50-miles, not a training flight. Rusty 18:40, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fifty miles (80km) is the American definition of space, not the international one (100km. As this is an international article (ie not exclusively about US disasters), Adams died while flying an aircraft, not a spacecraft. He never reached space on any X-15 flight. Dan100 09:46, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

How then would you classify the Challenger crew, who only reached 50,000 ft? Smith, McAuliffe and Jarvis were being launched on their first mission. Were they also only flying an aircraft? Reubenbarton 20:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Space Shuttle is a spacecraft, the X-15 was a high-altitude research aircraft. Dan100 21:10, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Challenger, if it had completed its mission, would have reached space by international standards. X-15-3, even if it had completed the mission, would not. --Carnildo 22:50, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So in your opinion, astronauts are only those individuals that meet the strict FAI rules? Reubenbarton 21:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd define as astronaut as someone who had flown in what is described as space by FAI rules, or is/was clearly going to, ie is in training (eg Chaffee). Correct me if I'm wrong, but Adams was not part of the NASA astronaut program at the time of his death. Dan100 21:47, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

The FAI rules are a farce. By strict FAI rules, none of the Vostok cosmonauts made spaceflights. Strict FAI rules state that the occupants must take off and land in the spacecraft. All of the Vostok cosmonauts ejected before landing. If you want to strictly follow the "FAI rules" then Alan Shepard was the first space traveler not Yuri Gagarin. Reubenbarton 23:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are referring to the FAI 'sporting' rules, which I agree are farcical. No-one would deny that Gargarin was the first man in space. However the fact remains that outside the US, 100km is regarded as the border of space. Dan100 00:55, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the tag on the article from {{npov}} to {{disputed}}, since the dispute here seems to be over the facts of the article, not the neutrality of the writing. --Carnildo 02:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why not just say "the inclusion of Adams in this list is sometimes disputed as his X-15 was only intended to fly to altitude X, which is higher than the altitude of space defined by the United States Government but lower than the altitude defined by the FAI" in the article after this list? That would seem to lay all the information out without telling the reader which standard to accept as the "real" one. Bryan 02:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought that was already the change I made. Rmhermen 04:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, nertz. I didn't check because I thought that if it had said anything like that there'd be no need for the disputed tag; I just assumed the problem was still unresolved. I vote to remove the tag, in that case. Bryan 05:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My explanatory paragraph includes all the facts and explors the issue from both sides (NPOV). That's why I'm reverting to it, and why I added the npov tag, not the dispute tag. Dan100 10:47, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise. Removed the line "As such, Michael Adams is not regarded as an astronaut outside of the USA", and altered wording of next paragraph so nothing is duplicated anywhere. Dan100 23:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing is duplicated? Here is your text:

(Michael J. Adams reached a maximum altitude of 81.08km (50.38 miles) in his X-15, and so was posthumously awarded Astronaut Wings for his last flight by NASA, as 50 miles is regarded as the edge of space in the USA. However, this is below the internationally recognized boundary to space of 100km.)

Here is the text from the next section which describes each accident in depth:

Michael J. Adams died while piloting a sub-orbital spaceflight in a rocket plane. Major Adams was a U.S. Air Force pilot in the NASA/USAF X-15 program. During X-15 Flight 191, on 15 November 1967, on his seventh flight, the plane first had an electrical problem and then developed control problems at the apogee of its flight. The pilot may also have become disoriented. During reentry from a 50.38 mile (81 km) apogee, the X-15 yawed sideways out of control and went into a spin at a speed of Mach 5, from which the pilot never recovered. Excessive acceleration led to the break up of the X-15 while in flight at about 65,000 feet (19.8 km). Adams was posthumously awarded astronaut wings as his flight had passed an altitude of 50 miles (80 km); however, it can be disputed if the incident technically counts as a "spaceflight accident" given that the flight fell short of the internationally recognized 100 km boundary of space.

Allowing for apogee as a synonym for "reached a maximum altitude", I fail to see a single word of your edit which is not contained in the detailed description. I am also very confused by your need to add this edit but not apparently seeing any need to add extra explanation to for Roger Chafee, or Gus Grissom, and Ed White. The fatalities section notes each exception and the following section give the particular details/ Why is this not sufficient? Rmhermen 15:19, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I never realised you were talking about much further down the article, I honestly thought you were talking about the next paragraph. I understand now! I still contend my paragraph should remain as it explains why two different sets of figures are given in the intro, and that the info on the dispute in detail of the accident should be correspondingly altered.

"(This includes Roger Chaffee (who never flew in space) and Michael J. Adams (who reached the U.S. but not the international defintion of space) in the spaceflight total and Grissom, White, Chaffee and Adams (the crew of Apollo 1) in the killed total)."

This version explains each exception in a concise manner that does not interfer with the statistics and each case is equally explaned in depth further in the article. This seems the most equitable solution to me. You fail to explain why you think additional explanation is needed beyond this or why unequal depths of explanation should be applied to the three cases. Rmhermen 15:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

However, why have you now made such drastic changes to the page? Dan100 15:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what happened. I was just doing a sectional edit to link astronaut wings to astronaut badge. Somehow it saved a complete blank and then a second save of just the section. Not sure what happened. I believe I have restored it. Rmhermen 15:52, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

For the statistics, when including X-15-3 as a space flight, I think we should also count other X-15 flights as 'total spaceflights', and the total number of 439 astronauts is too low. EmilTyf (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link

I removed the following from the article: To see the crash site of 56-6672, click here. The link leads to a page with extensive information about the crash of the X-15, but the page also has "Click here to own a piece of X-15A" link at the bottom. Should we include the link?

CAIB

Consider adding a link to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report? -- Ryan 02.17.05

Soyuz 18-A

In the article, it states that "On April 5, 1975, the Soyuz 18a mission nearly ended in disaster when the rocket malfunctioned during launch. The Soyuz's escape system pulled the capsule clear, but subjected the crew to an extremely rough return to earth." This is a common misconception about the flight, but in fact they were too far into the mission for the escape system to be used. In fact, only one Soyuz mission ever used the launch escape system, and it wasn't this one. (It was Soyuz 10a, which was the only operational use of any kind of emergency escape system to save a crew's life.)

A normal Soyuz launch profile, even with the modern Soyuz-TMA variant, goes roughly like this. After about 2.25 minutes, the four strap-on boosters separate. At three minutes, the launch escape tower fires, pulling away the payload shroud that protects the Soyuz capsule during the criticial max-Q phase of ascent (breaking the sound barrier). At a little over 5 minutes, the core stage (referred to as the second stage in rocketry parlance) shuts down and the third stage ignites. This burns until the desired trajectory is acheived; it generally shuts down between eight and nine minutes into the flight, which is pretty typical for manned flights to low Earth orbit on any launch vehicle.

What went wrong with Soyuz 18a was that at five minutes, the second stage failed to jettison. But the third stage ignited anyway, its flames presumably shooting out of the mesh interstage. The crew experienced dramatic gyrations, but these were not showing up on telemetry at mission control. Eventually, the crew did persuade the ground to issue the abort command. (Soviet missions generally could not be aborted by the crew.) The Soyuz separated from the violently gyrating booster at 192 km (alas, I do not know whether that is altitude or downrange distance). The Soyuz underwent normal reentry procedures, jettisoning the orbital and service modules. But this neccesitated a severe ballistic reentry. The crew endured forces of at least 20.6 Gs. They were lucky to survive. They traveled over a thousand miles downrange by the time the reentry was complete, and landed in the Altai Mountains, where the capsule tumbled down the slope, stopping in some vegetation just short of a cliff that would probably have killed them. The crew feared that having survived reentry, they'd find themselves in China (which at the time was openly hostile towards the Soviet Union). But it was Russian farmers who found them. Lazarev, the mission commander, suffered internal injuries due to the severe G-forces and was never able to fly again.

Soyuz 18a was a closer call than most people realize. -- User:Calli Arcale

Do you have a source for this? --Carnildo 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check Aviation Week, Space World, Time, or Newsweek for the period between the failed launch and before the launch of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project that July. Congress insisted on the Soviets making a report before allowing the joint mission to go ahead. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a list

This seems to be more of an article rather than a list. I suggest renaming the article to something more appropriate, since lists are just that, and don't contain much information on the items listed besides their name. --tomf688^(talk) 23:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestions? --Carnildo 03:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Space Disaster is an old location of this page and current redirect but I would suggest something a bit more precise like Human spaceflight disasters or History of human spaceflight disasters. This page doesn't cover unmanned spaceflight at all. Rmhermen 15:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

"LLRV No. 1" listed twice

Under the "Near misses" section of the article, it is stated that:

"Three of the five Lunar Landing Research and Training vehicles (LLRV & LLTV) were destroyed in crashes near Houston, Texas. LLRV No. 1 crashed on May 6, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas, Neil Armstrong was flying the craft at the time and had to eject. LLTV No. 1 crashed on December 8, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas causing MSC test pilot Joseph Algranti to eject safely. Another LLTV crashed at Ellington AFB, Texas on January 29, 1971. NASA test pilot Stuart Present ejected safely."

Since I am not an expert I can't check this by myself (or it would be time consuming), so I am asking you folks here. You see, it first says that "LLRV No. 1 crashed on May 6, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas", and later it says "LLTV No. 1 crashed on December 8, 1968 at Ellington AFB, Texas".

I am wondering should it be LLTV No. 2 instead in the second case ?? -- regards Wayfarer-Talk , August 1, 2005 at 1:45 GMT

they are two different crafts Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) and Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) so the way it is writen is correct.

Actual "in space" deaths

Since most of the deaths noted here occurred within the Earth's atmosphere upon take-off or landing/re-entry I wonder if it might be worth noting which accidents technically occurred "in space". I'm uncertain about Soyuz 11 as the article seems to suggest the deaths might have occurred during reentry since presumably someone conscious needed to initiate reentry. The Columbia breakup occurred above the 50 mile theshold so may be the first confirmed case of deaths in space, but I'm hesitant to note this if it's incorrect. It's a bit of a morbid milestone, but still a notable one. Thoughts? 23skidoo 04:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the international definition of space is at 100 km and Columbia was below 64 km when it broke up. Rmhermen 05:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some discrepency on this as other space-related articles on Wikipedia make use of the US definition which is IIRC 50 km. There needs to be some standardizing. My question still stands, then -- has anyone actually died in space? 23skidoo 16:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please list here or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions any instances you find of confusion of the two definitions of the boundary of space. We have made a strong effort to clearly identify any uses of the American definition. As to who has actually died while in space, the Soyuz 11 crew are the most likely, if any have. Rmhermen 16:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

New article title?

"Space disaster" gets a measly 14,100 hits on Google, and is also a title I personally found quite hilarious upon first seeing it, as the lack of plurality, while arguably in keeping with Wikipedia's "stay singular!" rules, makes it sound like one incident called "the space disaster" rather than like a page about space disasters in general. Recommend this be moved to a suitable synonym, or at least to something clearer, like Space exploration accident (which doesn't require that the accident be in space, as the current title implies, just that it be involved in space exploration). -Silence 20:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"List of space disasters" might fit convention better, even though this is more than a list. gparker 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time article picture

I noticed, for me at least, on the "In-flight accidents", where the Time article picture is positioned, it causes some of the formatting to not display properly. The Challenger and Columbia disasters don't show small square boxes in front of them. This causes it to look like one huge article. Does anyone else get this problem? If so, I suggest moving the picture to the right side. Phaldo 19:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick explanation of my edit

Both the chart at the bottom of this article and the Vostok rocket page list the deaths due to the fueling accident on 18 March 1980 as numbering 48; the article body listed the number as 50. I have corrected the "50" (which I'm guessing was just a rounded report) to "48." I figured that I ought to post an explanation before someone thinks that I'm a vandal. --CrazyDreamer 12:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I removed some biased phrasing, and cleaned up a bit. Also, gave some more detail about the pre-Gagarin rumors. CFLeon 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone want to try to cut down on the verbage on some of the accidents? I really don't think we need to go into as much detail as there is in some spots, especially when there are dedicated entried for them. Also, I'm going to put up a mention of the 'Fallen Astronaut' statue left on the Moon by the Apollo 15 astronauts. CFLeon 04:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discrepancy

The account of the Challenger disaster in this article does not seem to match the account in the article devoted to the Challenger. Specifically, the point of death for the astronauts, plus a few other details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amity150 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Can you be more specific? I don't clearly see what you're talking about. The Challenger account in this article is an abbreviated account and doesn't contain all the details of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster article, so naturally there will be some differences. I adjusted slightly the wording of one sentence in this article to be be sure, but I didn't see any clear discrepancy. If you could state exactly what the problems are I'll be happy to fix them. Joema 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cosmonaut fatalities" section

Does the "Cosmonaut fatalities" section need to exist? It doesn't appear to add anything, and it seems strange to call out the Soviet/Russian results separately. gparker 04:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Material in English is usually US-centric, though. That gives it some validity --Kizor 11:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esrange fatal accident in Sweden

One male was killed during a fatal accident involving a rocket at Esrange, Sweden. Anyone recall anything more about it? Regards Alexmcfire

What year? Feb 27 1993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Owens

Should we include that Steven Owens died while working on a warehouse at the Kennedy Space Center. [1] 999mal 11:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some more possibilities

Some suggestions for other additions to this page:

(1) Victor Prather - a very tragic case of someone dying during a parachute descent from the edge of space, intended to test spacesuits. I think this should be added to this page, what do other editors here think?
(2) Space animals - such as Gordo (space monkey) and Laika and other space dogs - died in space or during their flight. I think they should be added somewhere here as well, for the interest factor alone, rather than for any sentimental reasons, even if some of these animals were never intended to be recovered.

Any objections to adding these to this page? Carcharoth 14:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

I have renamed this page, from Space disasters, which was somewhat PoV. It is also now in keeping with Aviation accidents and incidents. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_EnrVf9u8s -Modelun88 05:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for that? --Carnildo 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Discovery Channel documentary, not just a YouTube video. It's reliable, but it might still not be legal. --Kizor 15:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find another source, the January 26, 1995 Long March accident could be added. I can't seem to find a print source though. Rmhermen 16:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? --Kizor 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Rmhermen 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks to you and Modelun88! --Kizor 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any use? [2]? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In ordinary circumstances I'd be against using encyclopedias and/or fansites, but when the NASA history office directs inquirers there I can't rightly object. Other opinions? --Kizor 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG

Image:2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Near-fatalities" include Vostok 1, Gemini 8, and other more-or-less trivial examples. In this case, is it OK to include the problem with the loose Mercury 1 heat shield? I think they talked about it in For All Mankind. They said that John Glenn came close to dying (maybe just for effect). So I don't know if this is would really be called a "near-fatality." 65.100.1.7 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "loose heat shield" on Mercury-Atlas 6 was a faulty sensor. The heat shield was firmly attached to the capsule, and John Glenn was in no danger. --Carnildo (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2008)

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.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space accidents and incidents → List of space accidents and incidents — 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} 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oppose. It's not just a list at all, rather it's an article that describes (as opposed to just lists) each of these incidents. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some description, but it is still essentially a list. There is insufficient background information. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: So, would you discard this descriptive material? It appears encyclopedic to me. See also below. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: it's got a lot of lists, but it's not really a list article, it has sufficient other material surrounding it; although more is always welcome. I think list articles typically only have one single list in them, but there's more to this article than that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not a list in the "traditional" WP way (whatever that means). JPG-GR (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

From the survey: it is still essentially a list. There is insufficient background information. Disagree, but even if that were so, expand it! No reason to delete good article content by stripping it down to a list. And insufficient by what criteria? Or flag it as a stub if you feel it's in that class, the topic is clear and encyclopedic. But again, I think it's a lot more than a stub, it's not even a bad article. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Soyuz TMA-11

Kizor, Soyuz TMA-11 was not a near fatal accident. I'm not sure it would even count as an accident at all, actually. Hence it has no place on this page. The crew were never in any more danger than during any other reentry.

That is a reasonable precaution to take. I apologize for reinstating it without further data. Now that we have grounds for a statement, I added references on how it's been presented as near-fatal in the press and NASA's resistance.
In the future, you would get better results by using edit summaries, especially when removing content. Those are how you specify your intent instead of having others guess. If you know programming, it's akin to commenting open-source code. --Kiz o r 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation error?

The page states that of 277 NASA/US astronauts a total of eighteen died, and gives a percentage of 4.1 percent. But 18/277 is roughly 6.5 percent. Assuming 18 and 277 is correct, then the percentage should be corrected - or am I missing anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.12 (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The calculated percentage is of all space flights, not only NASA. I agree this is confusing, but simply replacing it by 6.5% (18/277) won't do the trick, because the number of 277 is not of all NASA astronauts, but of all Americans, and there are quite some astronauts from other countries launched by NASA (although not all, so 18/(277+66) is also wrong).

Anyone who has any idea of the number of NASA-launched astronauts? EmilTyf (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we in the actuarial business? Maybe we shouldn't try to calculate numbers or percentages. Couldn't that be considered original research? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lack of inline citations

Inline citations seem to be completely missing from this article, which is a shame because otherwise it seems to check out. I'd add them if I had time right now, but I'm just complaining because I could be citing this article this very moment if it cited its sources better. The information is true but it's not clear where it comes from. Eris Discord | Talk 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-2 Deaths

Reading this page I have noticed some deaths involving ICBM are being mentioned plus scientists from the 1930s.

Technically shouldn't the 20,000 inmates of the Mittelbau-Dora plant died who died constructing V-2s should be added. (9,000 died from exhaustion and collapse, 350 were hanged (including 200 executed for acts of sabotage) and the remainder were either shot or died from disease or starvation) and the 7,250 military personnel and civilians killed by the rockets in Antwerp and London. Paul590

The V-2 related deaths aren't single incidents/accidents related to launchings into space as such. The war deaths especially should not be included here, as with the people shot for behavior-related reasons. They are beyond the scope of this page. Whether the ones you mentioned should be included is a different question. - BilCat (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the damned things definitely weren't involved in space exploration, we can't dismiss them as unrelated to spaceflight when they did fly in space. What defense I can muster is the fact that the space bit was (to my layman's knowledge) entirely incidental in their use. I'm adding a link to V-2s in the See Also section. I'd point it at a specific casualty section, but there doesn't seem to be one. --Kiz o r 22:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When used as a missile, V-2s only reached an apogee of around 90 kilometres (by the internationally accepted definition, 100 kilometres is the "edge of space"). Some V-2s did reach space, but to my knowledge none of those flights carried warheads. All V-2 flights that reached space are listed in the timeline of spaceflight (in the first few pages). --G W… 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question of balance

I don't understand the impulse to make this article as large and all-inclusive as possible. I believe that counting every death or accident related to spaceflight in any way, shape or form gives an inherent lack of balance and only serves to further a POV e.g., "human spaceflight is too dangerous", or "the space agencies are criminally liable".

I think when readers come to this article they are primarily concerned about the astronauts, on space missions. Among the things Wikipedia is not, is a "bully pulpit". It is our job to give readers the facts about what they are looking for, not to indoctrinate them by suggesting what they should be looking for, or what they should think about it. Training accidents and ground support accidents are valid topics, but should be broken out into separate articles. (However, in my personal opinion we should think hard about whether astronauts crashing jet planes are actually related to space flight. They don't so much "train" in these planes as sharpen their flying skills, and a plane crash is a plane crash, regardless of what the pilot does for a living.)

Apollo 1 is in scope as a spaceflight fatality (not training); even though it did not occur in-flight, the astronauts were not training in the same sense as a jet or LLTV crash; they were rehearsing for their imminent mission and were killed in the spacecraft; the fact that takeoff was not to occur for another month is immaterial.

I also think some of the incidents given are absolutely out of scope; as long as they are included in the separate articles, I feel they should be deleted from here:

The Gemini 5 landing miscalculation was not a real accident in that it placed the astronauts in no real danger.
Potential problems that did not actually happen (parachute damage from the Apollo 12 lightning strike and breakup from Apollo 13's pogo vibrations) don't count, and contribute to unfair lack of balance. These events and their implications are adequately covered in the articles.
Helicopter death searching for Challenger debris -- I'm sorry, but no. That's stretching it (balance -- POV.)
Shuttle astronaut killed on a commercial airline flight -- You're kidding, right?

JustinTime55 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ground support incidents

I even have a problem with some of these.

The "Nedelin catastrophe": largest single incident here, even says it's " not space related" (!) Then why is it here? ICBM's don't count.
People falling off a VAB floor under construction; hit by lightning. It's one thing when a rocket motor or vehicle blows up, but these accidents could have happened anywhere. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The missile involved in the Nedelin incident would have reached space if it had been launched. Your comment that "ICBM's [sic] don't count" is inaccurate. --G W… 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then this page is pretty much useless as written. Let's include all meteorite strikes as space-related also. Oh, and since the Earth moves through space, all aircraft and ground vehicle accidents should be included to, all fatory incidents, all sabotage, etc. Seriously, if an ICBM is being used for space-related research or purposes, then it should be included here. Otherwise, it's more appropriate on a page on ICBM or other military-related accidents.- BilCat (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; thank you, BilCat. The issue is not whether or not a vehicle reaches "space"; the focus is supposed to be on human spaceflight, not aerospace vehicles used as weapons. I guess I wouldn't care so much whether Nedelin is included, as long as these incidents are split out into another article (maybe needs a better title than "Spaceflight ground support incidents) and don't bias the human spaceflight article. Can I have some feedback on that, please? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly is a missile flying through space not a spaceflight? --G W… 21:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any NPOV problem here or any need to split this article. Perhaps your interpretation of what this list is supposed to be does not mesh with the other editors. Rmhermen (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute and section split suggestions

Perhaps the reason I'm not getting the type of responses I'm asking for, is that not everyone has had a chance to look at the latest page, and I haven't made myself clear.

I have raised an NPOV dispute. In my opinion, the neutrality of a list of human spaceflight accidents is compromised by the inclusion of Training accidents (especially where training tends toward the over-broad definition of "anything astronauts do when they're not flying spacecraft") and Fatal accidents with ground crew and civilian casualties which includes such things as incidents prior to the recognized start of the Space Age (mid-1950's), missile weapons, construction or industrial accidents. See How can one disagree about NPOV?; bias can be caused by adding individually neutral facts together out of context.

I don't object to the maintenance of these two lists, but I think the neutrality of the list of spaceflight accidents would be best maintained if they were split out into separate articles. Therefore I've placed a Section-split tag in each section, which is supposed to invite discussion of this. I'm doing this in good faith and I want to work with the consensus. I would really appreciate some thoughtful discussion of the merits of my proposal, instead of irrelevant questions which strike me as trollish. If there is a formal process for surveying this, I'm unfamilliar with it (I'm still fairly new as an editor.) Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replace the POV term "marred" with a passive tense reference to the accidents and deaths that have occurred. Why? I ask editors to consider, was the development of air transport and travel "marred" by accidents and deaths? No. Nor was sea travel, automobile travel, etc. These events happen, and as sad as they are, describing them as marring a program or development is not fair.--S. Rich 02:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to separate articles; the present article isn't too long, and "spaceflight" naturally includes unmanned spaceflight. But it's probably worth making this distinction more clear in the article, though; possibly with better section names. Mlm42 (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 1 accident

I still maintain (as I did on March 8 above) that the Apollo 1 fire is a Spaceflight fatality rather than a Training accident where it got recently moved back by GW_Simulations, for the following reasons:

Even though the astronauts were not in space, that is a meaningless technicality since they were performing a test and launch rehearsal for their mission which was less than a month away.
They were not training in the same sense as the others. They were killed in the craft they were to fly, not a jet plane or other training equipment.
If the fire had not happened then, it might have just as easily happened during the mission in space.
The accident fatally terminated the mission, just as surely as if it had happened in space.
It was the very first fatality directly associated with an imminent manned space mission and brought the Apollo project to a screeching halt and its effect was felt around the world, unlike plane crashes which killed astronauts slated to fly in the future, which most of the public scarcely heard about. It doesn't deserve to be burried down there.

It deserves to be placed in meaningful context, not by the technicality of the altitude it occurred at.

Please discuss these points. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, you should probaby post comments at the various projects listed at the top of the page (excepting perhaps WPDeath, wigh is probably far too broad). This article really needs more input, and probably a redefinition of its scope. "Space accidents and incidents" sugests those which actually happen in space, which this article is decidely not limited too. Also, the issue of whether the article should be limited to genuine spacecraft as such, or if missles grazing space should be included, along with soley missile-related ground incidents. As of now, no consensus can be formed, as the two main editors involved disagree widely. I'm no longer participating in discussions with known tenditious editors (GW), so I'm moving on. Good luck, Justin. - BilCat (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your allegations, and fail to see what relevance WP:TEND has to my edits, other than the fact that I react badly to obvious factual errors. Please can you clarify as to whether there are past incidents in which you believe I have acted improperly, as making accusations without evidence amounts to an ad hominem argument and an attempt at a personal attack. Either way, I am happy to discuss the issue, and my reversion of Justin's edit was simply due to the fact that I believed it to be wrong, I could not find any discussion that had previously determined that that was the applicable section for it, the edit summary contained little explanation as to why it was made, and I did not see the line in the post here that documented it. As for the points which have now been raised to suggest that said position is correct, I would argue that the first three are original research, and the comment in the fifth point that "It doesn't deserve to be burried [sic] down there" strikes me as a point of view. That leaves the fourth point, that "the accident fatally terminated the mission, just as surely as if it had happened in space". I agree that it terminated the mission for that crew, however I would be inclined to argue that the plane crashes and other accidents terminated missions for the crews involved. Those missions were flown with different crews, and Apollo 7 reflew the Block C Apollo mission that was originally Apollo 1's objective. --G W… 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article could do with some restructuring (It could also be renamed "Spaceflight accidents and incidents", for clarity). It seems to me most of the article lists fatalities, and also a list of some "near misses" (a list which could grow very large indeed!). Regarding fatalities, there are three natural divisions:

Astronaut killed during a mission,
Astronaut killed during a "spaceflight-related activity", but not during a mission, and
Non-astronaut killed during a spaceflight-related activity.

Under this division, Apollo 1 should fall into (2), since it wasn't actually during the mission (the mission clock hadn't started counting yet), so I agree with GW. But the article could be restructured to more clearly show this division. Mlm42 (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess you could split (3) up further to "human spaceflight-related activity" and "unmanned spaceflight-related activity". Then, for example the Nedelin catastrophe would not be in the same list as the fatalities prior to STS-1. Looking again at the list, STS-1 might be the only one under the human spaceflight-related category; nevertheless, I think they should be separated for clarity. Mlm42 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit (because astronauts often launch more than once)

Please provide statistical data for "(because astronauts often launch more than once)." The statement in it's entirety... "About five percent of the people that have been launched have died doing so (because astronauts often launch more than once). The only way for the statement to be proven is to answer the following questions.... who was launched specifically and how many times have they launched. If and only then can you determine "(because astronauts often launch more than once)", is a generalization which has to proven.

Even then because astronauts launch more than once does not determine their fatality, it is because of the current state of technology that launches them. My point is if they launch more than once does it decrease their odds of survival as a whole?... and if it does please explain exactly why it does so, I believe it is not astronaut related but technology related. The technology is the limitating factor, not human error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.15.125 (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article subject

This page is only about spaceflight-related accidents. Not about missile accidents, or rocket accidents in general. Please review the earlier entries in this talk page. Rmhermen (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've undone all of the reference links to the space related incidents. Which was requested on the page heading. Good work Rmhermen. This is why Wikipedia is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookie (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Wookies edits were adding references to existing entries. I've reverted to Wookie's version, less the completely new items. It took two minutes to remove these ones that weren't, simply deleting all his edits left me speechless; no wonder it's so hard to attract and nurture new editors. Kiore (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is 22 the correct total number?

These numbers aren't adding up for me.. the opening sentence states 22 astronauts and cosmonauts died during spaceflight or during training. But then the article goes on to list more than 22 which died during spaceflight or during training.. I'm tempted to change this number to 28, based on the book "Safety design..". I've cited this book for the number 18 (number of deaths during spaceflight, a number which seems pretty widely accepted), as well as the number 10, for the number of deaths of astronauts during training.

But I'm confused about the number of training fatalities, because the book I've cited says there were 3 Russian and 7 American training deaths, but the articles section "training accidents" lists 10 deaths: 2 russian and 8 american..? So the book "Safety design.." probably isn't counting one of the American ones, and is counting another Russian one, but I don't know which. In any case, these numbers should really be sorted out... especially the dubious "22" in the lead. Maybe there is another reference that goes into more detail? Mlm42 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to assume the 22 comes from the 18 deaths during spaceflight listed here, together with Apollo 1 and the X-15 fatality. I've changed the lead accordingly. Mlm42 (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also based on this list, the 10 training fatalities appear to be split 8 Americans and 2 Russians, as in the article; I suppose the book "Safety design.." may have a mistake. Mlm42 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article renaming

I think this article should be renamed to one of:

The article is a list (or rather several lists) at the moment, and I don't see how it could be anything other than a list. The reason (given above) the article name was chosen was to be in line with Aviation accidents and incidents; but that article doesn't list all the accidents and incidents (because there are too many!). I know there was a discussion above regarding renaming this article to a list, and the nominator withdrew the suggestion, because people were opposing it (because the article "describes" the events, not just "lists" them).. but I'd like to make the suggestion again; a list can still describe events! Think of Featured Lists like List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients.

I'm simultaneously suggesting that "Space" in the title be replaced with either "Spaceflight" or "Spaceflight-related". I am personally in favour of option (3). Mlm42 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Well, noone has responded, so I'm planning on moving the page to List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents soon. Mlm42 (talk) 06:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a similar move a couple of years ago and it was opposed quite strongly. I would suggest that you go through RM. --G W… 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.. yeah, I suppose I should. Mlm42 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was a preexisting consensus, moving the article without establishing a new one is a good way to be speedily reverted. 184.144.165.37 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any opinions would be welcome below.. there's been no opposition. Mlm42 (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It think we should name it, "If God wanted men to fly in space he would have given us the money.", but that's just me. ;-)Wookie (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: moved Kotniski (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space accidents and incidents → List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents — The article essentially consists of multiple lists, and so should probably be classified as a "list" article. Also, most incidents listed didn't actually occur in space (for example, it includes training accidents), so "spaceflight-related" is a better description. Mlm42 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my position in the previous discussion. Title seems as good as any. --G W… 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Question as to which non-astronaut fatalities should be included

Should this death, during the construction of Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39, be included in the article? A worker was killed by lightning while pouring cement in 1965. Here is a link to a newspaper article about the event on 3 August 1965:

Lightning Bolt At Cape Kills 1: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=h7gqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=s2UEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4064,686328

Wookie (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the "Non-astronaut fatalities" section is suffering from a poorly defined scope. What does "Spaceflight-related" mean, exactly? (as a sub-question, which rocket explosions are "spaceflight-related"?)

Currently the list consists of (1) Rocket explosions and (2) Fatalities occurring at a spaceport (including during its construction). Maybe we should take this as the full scope of the non-astronaut fatality section; in particular, I'd say we should include your example. Mlm42 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additonal spaceflight related deaths:

May 18, 1962 - 14 killed in Air Force Contingency Recovery plane crash. A C-130 involved in preparing emergency recovery operations for the Mercury-Atlas 8 Scott Carpenter orbital mission crashed in Africa.

Plane Crash Mars Orbit Preparations: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kCMjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZxEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7160,3896152

June 30, 1964 - 17 killed and missing when two Air Force planes involved in Gemini spacecraft ocean recovery training near Bermuda collided in mid-air and crashed.

Two AF Planes Crash In Flight: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kgswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VAEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7226,3291297

Wookie (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I see. Clearly these are spaceflight-related, since they were in preparation for spaceflights. I'm still concerned about the Rocket explosions section. The introduction to the article says we don't include ICBM's, but the Nedelin catastrophe is included; I suppose it happened at the Baikonur cosmodrome, so in that sense it's "spaceflight-related". In any case, it seems somewhat arbitrary to not include ICBM's.. they clearly travel through space (i.e. above the Karman line), and hence are spaceflight-related. But the entries from the 1930's should probably be removed.. they don't seem very spaceflight-related. Mlm42 (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that in order to be complete this list should include any vehicle capable of reaching space (100 km), whether manned or unmanned, orbital or sub-orbital, civilian or military. That would include the X-15, SpaceShipOne, IRBM's, ICBM's, Scuds, V-2's and sounding rockets capable of reaching 100 km. It would exclude Snark, Mace, large anti-aircraft missiles such as Nike. It probably should exclude wartime use of missiles, since during war intentional death and destruction is the intended purpose. This article is tracking accidents. Wookie (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another spaceflight related death, but not at a launch site:

February 29, 1972 - Kirby C. Dupree was killed in the Manned Spacecraft (Johnson Space) Center's Crew Training Building due to an exploding battery, in a battery box enclosure, used for lighting in Water Immersion Facility. The battery was out of the water when it exploded. The exlosion was due to a buildup of hydrogen and oxygen venting from the defective battery into the battery enclosure. When switched on, hydrogen and oxygen gas exploded.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=8SMyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SOcFAAAAIBAJ&dq=battery%20tank&pg=5185%2C194600 "Battery Blast Kills One Man", 'Lawrence-Journal-World newspaper, Mar 1, 1972

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/83118main_1966.pdf "NASA Manned Spacecraft Center - 1972 Press Releases", Release No: 72-133 Battery Accident Board Findings, June 20, 1972, PDF page 323 Wookie (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh.. How do you find all these stories, anyway? Just searching google? Mlm42 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently discovered the Google Newspaper archive. I search that. I have also searched biographies of the cosmonauts at the Russian Federal Space Agency using Babelfish to translate. Currently I am searching NASA's online press releases. Wookie (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Out of curiousity, what's your estimate of the number of incidents that have yet to be added to this list? Mlm42 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including the four above and and several ICBM incidents, I would guess less than ten. Wookie (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Space Walk of Fame Foundation (SWOFF) has compiled a list of workers who died doing their jobs at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), and Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Their names are engraved on one of the Apollo monument pylons at the SWOFF. The names will be transferred to a straight based pylon as soon additional funding allows according to the link below at Collectspace.com.

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum23/HTML/002596.html

Here is the list of workers at KSC - CCAFS involved in fatal accidents:

July 9, 1958: Fred D. Adams: Position: Maintenance employee; Company: Pan Am; Event: Died when he fell from Atlas service tower into an elevator shaft. Fred was the very first fatality at the Cape.
July 1, 1959: Edward Mann: (Not on SWOFF list; found in Google newspaper archive); Position: Missile technician; Company: ;Event: Fell from 12 foot ladder Wed, July 1, 1959 while preparing a Snark missile for flight. He died Sat, July 4, 1959 as a result of injuries from the accident. Link to newspaper archive story: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PHooAAAAIBAJ&sjid=78kEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3430%2C1050366 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookie (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
January 28, 1960: Morris Carter: Position: Laborer; Company: B.B. McCormack; Event: Killed by a truck while watering down compacted earth for a Saturn pad.
June 14, 1960: Joseph G. Sibole: Position: Technician; Company: Martin; Event: Killed while conducting a system check on the Titan when a tiny explosive charge blew up and ignited a flare package attached to the side of the intercontinental range rocket. Sibole's death is the first at the Cape attributed directly to a missile mishap.
March 28, 1961: Harbin Daril Revis: Position: Assistant crane operator; Company: Leonard Brothers; Event: Killed in the industrial area of the Cape when the bucket of the crane swung around and hit the "hot" wire.
May 21, 1961: Eugene M. Martin: Position: Security guard; Company: Pan Am; Event: Killed by lightning while directing traffic during Armed Forces Day open house.
July 8, 1962: Sgt. H. Smith: Position: Assigned to the 6555th Aerospace Test Wing; Event: Was fatally injured when he fell into an elevator shaft while performing maintenance on Complex 11 gantry.
August 23, 1963: Airman McCubbin: Position: Assigned to GEIIA; Event: Was fatally injured in a fall from an 80 foot antenna tower. He was dismantling the tower at the time of accident.
March 13, 1964: Vernon Emkey: Position: Iron Worker; Company: American Bridge & Iron Co.; Event: Was killed when he fell 38 feet from a Titan III Complex structure.
April 14, 1964: Sidney J. Dagle: Position: Missile technician; Company: Ball Brothers Research Corp.; Event: Died April 17, 1964 as a result of 3rd stage (X-248) rocket motor explosion in the Delta Spin Test Facility.
April 14, 1964: Lot D. Gabel: Position: Missile technician; Company: Ball Brothers Research Corp.; Event: Died April 18, 1964 as a result of 3rd stage (X-248) rocket motor explosion in the Delta Spin Test Facility.
April 14, 1964: John W. (Jack) Fassett: Position: Space Craft Coordinator; Space Center: GSFC; Event: Died May 5, 1964 as a result of 3rd stage (X-248) rocket motor explosion in the Delta Spin Test Facility.
April 27, 1964: Phillipe Bengas: Event: Died as a result of an explosion aboard a range supply ship Gulf Stream at Grand Turk. Phillipe was working down range support for the Apollo Program.
July 2, 1964: Oscar Simmons: Position: Construction worker; Company: American Bridge & Iron Co.; Event: Died in accidental fall from 26th level of the VAB.
October 27, 1964: William Pemberton: Company: Martin Company; Event: Killed when the forklift he was driving on Complex 19 perimeter road flipped over on him.
April 28, 1965: Jerry B. Baker: Position: Construction worker; Company: McDowell-Wellman Eng. Co.; Event: Killed near the base of Complex 34 mobile service tower when a 15 foot section of 5 inch structural steel pipe, cut out of the service tower as part of a modification, fell 188 feet and struck him.
May 4, 1965: Marion J. Anderson: Position: Truck Driver; Company: Glover Brick; Event: Killed while walking in the VAB transfer isle between towers B and E of the high bay when a 12 foot wooden form fell 457 feet from the 37th floor and struck him.
August 3, 1965: Albert J. Treib: Position: Construction superintendent; Company: George Fuller Const. Co.; Event: Killed by lightning at LC-39 pad B when pouring concrete from a crane bucket into forms 40 feet up on the launching pad.
March 16, 1966: V. S. Evans: Position: Electrician; Company: MeVa Corp.; Event: Killed while working on updating a Saturn 1B facility when he was struck by a descending elevator at Complex 37.
July 28, 1966: James O. Dorminy Jr.: Position: Heavy equipment operator; Company: Trans World Airlines; Event: Killed during a rainstorm when an earthmover he was riding on rolled over on him.
January 27, 1967: Virgil "Gus" Grissom: Position: Astronaut Lieutenant Colonel, USAF; Event: Died when a flash fire occurred in the command module during launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle at Complex 34 and known as the Apollo I fire.
January 27, 1967: Edward H. White, II: Position: Astronaut Lieutenant Colonel, USAF; Event: Died when a flash fire occurred in the command module during launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle at Complex 34 and known as the Apollo I fire.
January 27, 1967: Roger Bruce Chaffee Position: Astronaut Lieutenant Commander, USN; Event: Died when a flash fire occurred in the command module during launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle at Complex 34 and known as the Apollo I fire.
May 16, 1968: William B. Estes: Position: Mechanic; Company: Bendix Corporation; Event: Died at LC-39 pad A, in preparation for the Mobile Service Structure arrival. A faulty gage indicated it was safe to remove a pipe cap from the pad 150 psi water supply line. The pressure released the iron cap when he started disconnecting it and it struck his chest.
July 31, 1972: Darrell Ramsey: Event: Died when he fell 52 feet and landed on the second floor level of the Launch Complex 34. Darrell worked for a Columbia, SC Company that was dismantling Pads 34 and 37.
March 19, 1981: John Bjornstad: Position: Mechanical technician; Company: Rockwell International Event: Died at LC-39 pad A from exposure to gaseous nitrogen conditions when entering the Orbiter aft compartment following a countdown demonstration test, prior to the first Space Shuttle launch.
March 19, 1981: Forrest Cole: Position: Quality Control; Company: Rockwell International; Event: Died April 1, 1981 resulting from exposure to gaseous nitrogen conditions when entering the Orbiter aft compartment following a countdown demonstration test, prior to the first Space Shuttle launch.
March 19, 1981: Nick Mullon: Position: Mechanical technician; Company: Rockwell International; Event: Died as a result of complications from gaseous nitrogen exposure after entering the orbiter aft compartment following a countdown demonstration test prior to the first space shuttle launch.
May 7, 1981: Anthony Hill: Position: Construction worker; Company: Wilholt International Corp.; Event: Died after falling 110 feet at LC39 pad B.
June 10, 1981: Beau Sauselein: Position: Titusville Fire Fighter; Company: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Event: Died at KSC after becoming trapped during firefighting.
June 10, 1981: Scott Maness: Position: Titusville Fire Fighter; Company: U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Event: Died at KSC after becoming trapped during firefighting.
June 8, 1985: Robert E. "Champ" Murphy: Company: BSI; Event: Lost foot in a Halon cylinder incident on March 2, 1978 and died as a result of the effects of the Halon exposure on June 8, 1985.
March 24, 1986: Joseph L. Tyre: Position: Construction worker; Company: Cherokee Steel Erectors; Event: Died after falling 90 feet while installing a bridge crane in the Cargo Hazardous Servicing Facility.
April 4, 1988: Lori Kay Gillan Laubenheimer: Position: Laboratory Assistant; Company: EG&G Environmental; Event: Died in an auto accident when a KSC tour bus ran a stop light.
July 27, 1989: Clarence E. Hailey: Position: Electrical worker; Company: EG&G; Event: Died after falling from a platform in the VAB.
July 8, 2001: Barton Stanley: Position: Construction worker; Company: Precision Fabricating & Cleaning; Event: Killed by pipe coupling during disassembly of pressurized pipe at LC37.
August 24, 2001: Constantine "Gus" Valantasis: Position: Painter; Company: Valant Painting Inc.; Event: Died moments after falling 34 feet inside Hanger I CCAFS.
October 1, 2001: Bill Brooks: Position: Crane Operator; Company: Boeing Company; Event: Killed at LC37 while performing maintenance on Mobile Tower Crane.
March 17, 2006: Steven Owens: Position: Roofer; Company: Space Gateway Support; Event: Died after falling from facility (SLSL) roof.
March 14, 2011: James Vanover: Position: Swing arm engineer; Company: United Space Alliance; Event: Fell from LC-39A launch pad where Shuttle Endeavour was being prepared for launch.

Wookie (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle drag chute burned up during launch

Hello, I remember there was one Space Shuttle flight (approximately mid 1990ies), in which the landing drag chute burned up during launch (I think by the exhaust of the main engines). They had to land without drag chute, but this was not a problem. Does anybody know more about that? Greetings --84.146.253.120 (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of STS-95 in 1998, which took John Glenn back into space; the drag chute door popped off during takeoff, and NASA decided not to use the chute when the shuttle landed (there's a good article about it here). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-fatal injuries suffered by ground personnel - should a new section be added to article?

Here's an incident involving the Apollo 16 command module, post landing in 1972, that injured almost 50 people. Should a section be added for non-fatal injuries of ground personnel?

The aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga delivered the Apollo 16 command module to the North Island Naval Air Station, near San Diego, California on Friday, May 5, 1972. On Monday, May 8, 1972, ground service equipment being used to empty the residual toxic RCS fuel remaining in the Apollo 16 command module tanks post landing, exploded in a Naval Air Station hanger.

A total of 46 people were sent to the hospital for 24 to 48 hours observation, most suffering from inhalation of toxic fumes. Most seriously injured was a technician that suffered a fractured kneecap when the GSE cart overturned on him.

A hole was blown in the NAS hangar roof 250 feet above, about 40 windows in the hanger were shattered. The Apollo 16 command module suffered a three inch gash in one of its panels.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0eUzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=1722%2C2797182 "46 injured in Apollo 16 explosion", Lodi, California - News Sentinel newspaper, May 8, 1972

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0eUzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qTIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=6132%2C2805357 "46 injured in Apollo 16 explosion "Blast" - continued", Lodi, California - News Sentinel newspaper, May 8, 1972

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=03lWAAAAIBAJ&pg=6904%2C1961609 "Apollo blast: 46 hurt", Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, May 9, 1972

Wookie (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. Otherwise the "Injuries to ground personnel" section could take over the entire article. If this information isn't already in the Apollo 16 article, then that's where it should go. I am uneasy about the "non-fatal incidents" sections that are already in the article, because the lists don't actually have a precise definition.. so we don't have a way of drawing a line.. Mlm42 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-human fatalities

What about animals, like Laika? Surely they deserve a place - they are astronauts in that they were in space, and they very definitely died! Don't these predecessors of ours count!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.32.163 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Otherwise the entire thing values human life more than non-human life. It doesn't say "human fatalities" anywhere.(ModernGeek (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No - This page is for ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS. The missions on which animals were sacrificed were neither accidental or exceptional. It also doesn't say "fatalities" anywhere, either. Perhaps another category linked through space travel is a better option. Dkendr (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laika was one of the few intentional casualties. Most died in accidents; however, I am all for keeping this page primarily for humans. Perhaps a small note mentioning animals could direct to animals in space, I guess). Rmhermen (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

There is an NPOV tag on this page with no obvious criteria for determining if it is resolved or not. The article Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems#Removing tags says anyone may remove the tag if they so not see the purported problem. I see no purported problem, the tag has been in place for nearly 2 years and I have therefore removed the tag on the assumption that it has been left in error. If the dispute really is ongoing, then I trust that there are no hard feelings. I am also removing the split tag for similar reasons. Op47 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Astronaut fatalities during spaceflight" heading issues

Of the four in-flight incidents resulting in fatalities, only Soyuz 11 had fatalities occur during spaceflight. The other 15 people died below the Kármán line. Either the heading needs to be renamed to something along the lines of "In-Flight Astronaut Fatalities" or the section needs to be split into two separate sections to make clear the distinction between those who actually died in space and those who died underneath the FIA's definition of space. I prefer the latter solution as I think it's a pretty important distinction. 206.28.38.227 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

300 nanometers?

Under "Non-fatal incidents during spaceflight", the second bullet describing the Liberty Bell 7 says the following:

"The spacecraft was recovered in 1999, having settled 300 nm southeast of Cape Canaveral"

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that 300 nanometers is a mistake. I could not find the correct distance on the Mercury-Redstone 4 page, does anyone know what this value is supposed to be?SausageAndWaffle (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nm = nautical miles. Rmhermen (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gagarin

Hi, I'd like to point out that his section here about the cause of death might be updated with the latest revelations which someone already summarized in his bio article. --Elitre (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move (2014)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents → List of human spaceflight accidents and incidents – I just reverted a good-faith edit by an IP adding an unmanned launch failure to the article. Although the title does not make it clear, the content of this article relates only to manned missions, so the page should probably be moved to reflect this. W. D. Graham 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support- The article focuses only on manned incidents, as stated in the second paragraph. It makes sense to clear up any ambiguity. Pishcal (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Please reread the second paragraph carefully, and scan the whole article (esp. section 5) It does not exclusively talk about manned missions. It includes failures of unmanned missions (notably Intelsat 708 Satellite, among others) which caused injury or death to non-astronaut personnel. If the intro is unclear, it should be revised to be more so. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarify: The IP user's mistake was in adding the Cygnus CRS Orb-3 failure, which is clearly out of scope because no one (apparently) was hurt, not because it was an unmanned launch. That can be fixed by adding a sentence to the introduction. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I had missed that. I would suggest, however, that a move-and-split might be a better way to handle this since at the moment the article covers two loosely related, but distinct, topics. --W. D. Graham 22:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support a second unmanned spaceflight list should be created. If human casualties are needed, then the list names should indicate that. List of manned spaceflight-related accidents and incidents resulting in human casualties and List of unmanned spaceflight-related accidents and incidents resulting in human casualties HOWEVER, the intro does not state that human casualties (fatal or otherwise) are required to be listed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment First of all, MOS:LIST implies that list titles should not be overly complicated, as I think your suggested names are; "resulting in human casualties" is non-value added since it adds no distinction, and is also unnecessary because we wouldn't be interested in any of these incidents if they did not result in human casualties (that's also why it's not explicitly stated in the intro.) Second of all, W.D., you didn't specify exactly what you think the two loosely related topics are; do you mean launch/testing ground casualties as opposed to human flight-related casualties? I don't know if "manned" and "unmanned" matches your intent.

At any rate, in order to sort this out, I think we need to close this move discussion, and open a new split discussion which defines the desired split. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

SpaceShipTwo VSS Enterprise

This is currently listed as non-astronaut fatalities. This seems odd, since Challenger is listed as astronaut fatalities during spaceflight. Is the difference that they weren't planning to get into space? this wasn't a training mission - they were testing a rocket motor in flight. Anniepoo (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's odd - by no definition were they not astronauts, or spacecraft crew-members. Fatalities during spaceflight may not be entirely accurate seeing as (as you say) they weren't planning on getting into space; perhaps the 'astronaut fatalities during spaceflight training' list should be amended to 'astronaut fatalities during spaceflight training/testing' and the SS2 entry moved there. Under the current logic, a fatal crash of the Space Shuttle Enterprise during atmospheric testing would have gone under non-astronaut fatalities! Blueb0g (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This should go under astronaut fatalities. I didn't want to make the change without discussion, in case there was specific rationale for this classification. I think Blueb0g's suggestion is good.jgalak

I strongly oppose moving it. The flight on which the accident occurred was an atmospheric test. A powered atmospheric test, but an atmospheric test nonetheless. It was not, nor was it intended to be a spaceflight. I think it would be extremely misleading to present this as an in-flight accident since the in-flight accidents section is only for accidents which occurred during spaceflights. Putting it under training accidents would be better, however it would still imply that the crew were astronauts as opposed to test pilots. --W. D. Graham 19:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you say they weren't astronauts? They were both part of Scaled Composites Astronauts team. The company refers to them as commercial astronauts. If you think that simply because they were not undertaking a spaceflight, or because they hadn't actually been in space means that they are 'non astronauts', then Apollo 1 should be removed from the list of 'Astronaut fatalities during spaceflight training', along with all the other names on that list who hadn't been to space - Bondarenko, Freeman, See, Bassett, Chaffee (already implied through Apollo 1), Williams and Lawrence Jr. They had never been in space but were training/testing for it and were designated as astronauts/cosmonauts by their space agencies... Why are Seibold and Alsbury (the crew of SS2) any different? I agree putting the accident in the spaceflight category would be wrong, but putting them in a training/testing list makes complete sense, and calling them 'non astronauts' is both untrue and disrespectful. You stress that they were atmospheric testing but to go back to my example earlier - if the Shuttle had crashed in testing, with a NASA astronaut crew lost (but let's say a crew who had never been in space), would you argue to put that accident under 'non astronaut fatalities'? Because this is exactly the same thing, and if the answer is yes, then most of the 'astronaut fatalities in training' list has to go. Blueb0g (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-15 Flight 3-65-97 & VSS Enterprise are both near-space test flight failures resulting in fatalities. I suggest moving VSS Enterprise up to that table and giving it a sub-heading of "Fatalities During Test Flights". The distinction of "astronaut" or "test pilot" is not relevant. 72.78.212.218 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a "near-space" flight we need to start listing air crashes. --W. D. Graham 19:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they were part of a space program or directly related test, then yes. 72.78.212.218 (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Perhaps use the more inclusive term 'crewmember' instead of astronaut to side-step the astronaut/testpilot distinction. Blueb0g (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SGTM 72.78.212.218 (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum, it should be in the "Astronaut fatalities during spaceflight training" section, like Theodore Freeman and Robert Lawrence - both are listed in that section, yet neither of them had traveled in to space. Siebold and Alsbury almost certainly would have flown space-altitude missions at some point during the test program, just as Freeman and Lawrence were scheduled to do before their fatal accidents. They were training/preparing/testing a spacecraft for spaceflight. 208.67.132.5 (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to argue that the SS2 accident was not spaceflight training, a position I disagree with, but the crew members were operating a vehicle designed to be a spacecraft that failed. It just seems disingenuous to me to place it alongside the PEPCON disaster. Does that open the door to putting X-15 fatalities on non-spaceflights into the list? Sure, but that's not a bad idea either. Maybe "Fatalities in spacecraft outside spaceflight"?Astrofreak92 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

did we miss the...

1960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:1500:706:203:93FF:FE92:EAD8 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no. Rmhermen (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Adams

"There has also been an accident on a flight that was considered a spaceflight by those involved but not under the internationally accepted definition" This is very vague. Who are "those involved", and is there a citation that says they considered it a spaceflight? 137.43.188.148 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in detail in the description box right under that line. Rmhermen (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article states "To date, no individual member of a multi-member crew has died during a mission or rehearsal," however later goes on to list the VSS flight, in which one person died and one survived. Guinness2702 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That statement applies only to the sub section "Astronaut fatalities during spaceflight". VSS was a test flight, not a mission or a rehearsal for a mission, and is in the "Fatalities during spaceflight training or testing" section. Generic1139 (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that makes sense. It's just a little confusing, as the distinction between rehearsal and testing is a little blurry. Maybe some of this could be rephrased a little? Guinness2702 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should Gagarin be here?

His article says he was on a "routine training flight". Was that space-related at all? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there has been no discussion of this in more than a year. There is no proof at all that Gagarin was training for Soyuz 3 (that article does not mention him at all.) His article explicitly says that after the crash of Soyuz 1 (for which he was backup pilot), he was banned from further spaceflight. His article says in 1964 "he began to re-qualify as a fighter pilot". That was what he was training for when he was killed, not for Soyuz 3.

You are absolutely correct, this does not belong here, as his death was not "during training or testing" for spaceflight; not spaceflight-related at all. I am removing it. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gagarin's death and the erroneous "Soyuz 3" reference were put there by this article's original author, Rlandmann (talk · contribs) in March 2003. I am similarly surprised that no one bothered to correct it for over fifteen years. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. 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/20010605212352/http://www-lib.ksc.nasa.gov/lib/chrono.html to http://www-lib.ksc.nasa.gov/lib/chrono.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42072452/ns/today-today_tech/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509080812/http://www.chrisvalentines.com/sts107/index.html to http://www.chrisvalentines.com/sts107/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) 12:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. 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://www.webcitation.org/6FDpAqAU4?url=http://www.uxb.com/pages/marine-services.html to http://www.uxb.com/pages/marine-services.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) 02:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of spaceflight-related accidents and incidents. 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) 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename tables under the "Asronaut Fatalities - During Spaceflight" section?

The naming of the tables is rather misleading, as it differentiate according to the *planned* type of mission and not to the actual status of the spacecraft at the moment of the fatal accident. So, to give an example, the Space Shuttle Challanger is listed among the "Orbital Spaceflights" fatal accidents, while it did never entered orbit at all ... definitively *not* correct. I would suggest to reorganize and rename the tables more rationally, i.e. fatal accidents "in space", that so far include Soyuz 11 only, and accidents "below space" (or "in atmosphere", or whatever) for all the others. That should be rather straightforward, as all fatalalities except Soyuz 11 happened well below *both* the Kármán line (FAI definition) *and* the NASA 50 miles altitude definition, so "below space" no matter how you measure it. Waiting for some opinion before starting any correction. All the best. --Arturolorioli (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So now there is a separate table in the orbital spaceflights labeled "Spaceflight fatalities below the Karman line". However, Columbia also broke up well below the Karman Line. I think it really should appear in the "below Karman Line" section along with Challenger and the X-15 flight. Any other opinions? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any astronaut fatalities (except Soyuz 11 and training fatalities) should be listed below Karman line, since they all took place below the Karman line. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man killed in rocket mishap?

https://ktla.com/2020/02/22/man-killed-in-rocket-crash-in-desert-in-barstow/

I know he was trying to "prove" something but its only fair he should get a mention. Seems to have been a tragic accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket, maybe but not spaceflight. Not even close. Rmhermen (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Rmhermen, was not a spaceflight mission. Kees08 (Talk) 19:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think he should be added, but he's not some man. Mike is not a nobody no one's heard of till today, this isn't his first flight and he's been known for years. Idiot or not Mike just died and deserves some respect. -AndrewRG10 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would the incident go under the other non-astronaut fatalities table? --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No way, shape, or form. Just because he was killed in a rocket, it was no way spaceflight-related. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacefarer

How about avoiding astronaut/cosmonaut by using "spacefarer", it would be less culturally biased. - Francis Tyers · 00:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F-m-t: Good idea, but we must not use recent coinages for our purpose. We should use the one that are favoured in reliable sources (e.g. space traveller). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]