Talk:List of crewed spacecraft

Proposed deletion
I support the deletion of the article on grounds of being pure WP:OR.

But I cannot find an AfD page on which to comment on. I think the proposer may have missed a step in the AfD nomination process. Someone please note on my talk page if such an AfD page is created. N2e (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This page has been proposed for deletion through the process described at Proposed deletion, which is a different process than Articles for deletion. There is no discussion page for articles proposed for deletion in this way, as the point of the proposed deletion process is that the person proposing the article for deletion doesn't think that a discussion is necessary.  If you want to add a comment supporting the proposed deletion, you can use a prod-2 tag. Calathan (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dispute: I don't think the proposed reason for deletion is sufficient, references could be added for each of these space-flights. I think a more pertinent discussion would be merging with List of human spaceflight programs. Metaphorazine (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I support a merge of this list and List of human spaceflight programs. They are essentially the same and no reason for two articles. I don't agree that this is WP:OR, but it does lack refs.-- Navy Blue84  18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion - I might support a merger of this with a similar article, but this article as it stands does serve a role that is useful to Wikipedia and certainly fits within existing guidelines. If the point is the concept of a list in the first place existing within Wikipedia, this is an inappropriate forum for discussing such an issue and the relevancy of lists on Wikipedia is a well established principle.  Adding references would be useful for this article, but I don't think it is a lack of material to choose from that is the problem facing this list in terms of that problem.  It is mainly getting somebody busy enough and with enough time to get it to happen.  I also strongly disagree with the "original research" rationale being offered here, as it sort of misses the point of that policy in the first place.  --Robert Horning (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Chronological
You can't possibly say the list is choronological, when you start with currently operational, then jump backward in time to formerly operational, then jump forward to proposed/future. The order has to be former first, then current, then proposed/future. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now it's all messed up, of course. For instance, why is the Soyuz TM suddenly listed as "currently operational" when it last flew nine years ago? - HCM, 30 June 2011


 * Fussy, fussy. :-) Sorry; I'll move it up, and be more precise on the dates. JustinTime55 (talk)

Cancelled programs should be separate from Proposed
Reason for this is: as a spacecraft changes its status with time, the (non-cancelled) vehicles will move up, e.g. the Space Shuttle will soon move from Current to Former. And hopefully, some Proposed spacecraft will become Current. The alternative, of course, is that they could move down to Cancelled. The cancelled ones, by definition, shouldn't be expected to move. Any thoughts? JustinTime55 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Scale issue in chart
The scaled depictions of all manned spacecraft types and their launchers is useful, but the scale is significantly inexact, as seen in comparing the essentially identical booster sections of the Vostok and Soyuz rockets, and in the relative sizes of the Redstone to the Atlas and to the Vostok rocket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.210.59.130 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This image you are referring to was created by some public relations guys at NASA, not here on Wikipedia (but is in the public domain so it can be used here legally). It would be nice to update the image though to include a few other spacecraft and to more correctly scale the image.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

i can't find USA in "Current manned spacecraft" section.
Ram nareshji (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC) i can't find country USA in "Current manned spacecraft" section. please add USA in "Current manned Section".


 * The USA is not in the list of "current manned spacecraft" because they do not at the time of asking (October 2014) have a manned craft in space. Britmax (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Manned Space-craft returns to earth, but space stations revolve around earth in its orbits, then why "Space stations" are included in "Current manned spacecraft" section?, could you explain?


 * They are included because they are manned spacecraft, as they are manned, they are craft, and they are in space. What other criteria do they need? Are you saying that a ship is not a ship unless it returns to harbour? Britmax (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Add Hermes (spacecraft)
I think the Hermes (spacecraft) should be added to this list somewhere. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Move of Orion section?
Should we add the Orion spacecraft to the list of crewed operational spacecraft, or should we let it stay in the development section. It has not carried crew yet, but it is operational. QuicksmartTortoise513 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Starliner is still in testing but is in the operational section. As of writing it is yet to fly with a crew. Starliner and Orion should be in the same section. 124.168.243.104 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)