Talk:List of government space agencies

TSA
Turkish Space Agency source: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-space-ambitions-may-be-too-ambitious.aspx?pageID=238&nID=73242&NewsCatID=483 91.14.120.13 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

too many agencies listed
Just calling something a space agency does not make it a space agency if it does nothing in outerspace, and only contracts with others to build satellites that still others launch.

You are right that there are many agencies without real activity. But the real activity of an agency is not to develop hardware, but to set the national policy and implement it (representing the country in international fora, contracting activities with industry, etc), including management of the national space budget. Having labs and building hardware themselves are not required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.71.140 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * i think there is plenty to handel 2A02:C7C:E227:8500:B1A2:46CB:FB1B:6198 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

China
China has planned a space station, it does not operate one.
 * Tiangong 1 is currently the People's Republic of China's "space station" which is why they are operating a space station; Salyut 1 from the USSR is the closest example I have to what the PRC's Tiangong 1 category fits in with. --

Budget
The credibility of the budget comparison on the bottom of the page is very low without sources. Sources should be added or the section should be removed. MikkelR 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and what's with the Chinese budget, its the combination of their military and civil budgets, whereas almost all else are just the civil space budget of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.144.95 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Erased publicity for some band
"Artistic space agencies"... erased

This list looks longer...
http://rhea.la.asu.edu/spl/data_resources/space_agencies/

Though it lacks any detailed information.

Another good source. Chadlupkes 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge duplicate articles
Space Agency and Space agency are duplicate articles, I'll try to merge them later, unless someone wants to do it first. - Rudykog 13:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, right after I merge them, I find that there is a category for space agencies... - Rudykog 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great work!! Chadlupkes 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

CSA
Croatian Space Agency, mentioned on the site, is not a space agency, it's rather a some kind of astronomical society. So, it should not be on this list. It's not a government agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.142.202 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan Space Program
Removed vandalism. ✅

Israeli 1.25 billion USD budget is ridiculous
This is an overstatement by more than 1000 times. The current budget of the Israeli Space Agency is a bit of one million USD. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

implicit colour scheme
i suppose the colour scheme is implicitly implying that "manned space flight" implies "launch capability" which implies "operates satellites"? perhaps something like "manned space flight + launch capability + operates satellites" would make this explicit. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. Thanks for making the correction. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

refs column
i'm not sure the purpose of the Ref(s) column? there is already a website column; if there is a specific fact that should be cited in the table, then shouldn't the citation be next to that fact, rather than in a separate column? the way it is makes it unclear what the references are referencing. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe... I was concerned that it might make the table too messy, with numbers scattered everywhere. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Colour scheme
I don't like the colour scheme for the different capabilities. I think a sortable table with the different options as Yes/No boxes in columns would look a lot nicer. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 10:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But then the table would be getting rather wide... Mike Peel (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikicode is limiting it to 100% of the page. If the country flags were removed, the founded date was only the year, the terminated column (which has very few entries) was removed, and the refs column had no "citation needed" the table could adequately accommodate three new y/n columns.  This plan will sacrifice very little info. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese Spacial Company
This appears to be a link to a medical company in Portugal, should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Other Agencies that should be added
ASAL - Algerian Space Agency (fr: Agence Spatiale Algérienne) - http://www.asal-dz.org/ CNT - Tunisian National Centre for Remote Sensing (fr: Centre National de Télédétection) - http://www.cnt.nat.tn/ CRTS - Moroccan Royal Centre for Space Remote Sensing (fr: Centre Royal de Télédétection Spatiale) - http://www.crts.gov.ma/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Afrispace, http://phys.org/news/2012-09-ministers-african-space-agency.html

http://www.afrispace.org/ African Space Agency, proposed space agency of the African Union. Sidelight12 (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Solar Warden Anonlithium (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

South Africa
Hi! What about South Africa's Space Agency? --68.239.72.76 (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL
Theres some space agencies that need color like Nigeria. Mickman1234 (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I beleive that we should add more space agencies.
we need to add more space agencies, so that we will know what has satilites, operates satalites, space launch capibality, manned space launch and probly moonwalks. Mickman1234 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Space Agency
I deleted Mexico from the list of agencies with the highest budget (stated as $914 million) because the latest information published suggests that for its first year of operation, it will be assigned between $21 million and $60 million pesos = $1.5 million USD - $4.4 million USD. References: Sep/2008: ; Nov/2008:.


 * The Mexican Space Agency (AEXA) does not exist. According to the official website of the Mexican Government: The Mexican Space Agency (AEXA) is in the process of being formed. It's expected that the end of the year the Mexican Senate make a final decision on this matter, so that the organisation obtains legal status. Consequently, we reiterate that it is still not possible to refer to AEXA as a legal entity as the agency as such does not yet exist. For this same reason no one has assumed any position inside AEXA and no one can claim that they are included in its budget.SEE REFERENCE


 * So stop adding AEXA to the list of space agencies. Limongi (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It was approved on November 04, 2008... the deletion is in regards to the budget... not the agency itself... see sources for your self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AEXA


 * The bill creating AEXA was approved by the Mexican Senate. But it still needs a confirmation vote in the Chamber of Deputies and an eventual proclamation by President Felipe Calderón in order to be created. So it doesn't yet exist. Ref When, and if, it comes to exist, then it shall be added to the article - as this article is about current space agencies. Limongi (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

- As of 27 February 2009 the Mexican Space Agency does not exist and has never existed, but two users: BatteryIncluded and Jesusmariajalisco keep asserting the contrary using a fan site and an incomplete article from a newspaper that reports the results of a vote in the Mexican Senate (not about its creation). While we have provided plenty of evidence, they keep ignoring it, and have gone as far as giving it an official budget, an official logo (taken from a fan site's online contest) and even a date of creation.

Unfortunately, since the initiative has never left the Congress, most of the evidence is in Spanish except for a NASA status report dated 21 Feb 2009:


 * The official Gazette of the Mexican Senate from 26 February 2009, encouraging the appropriate commissions on the lower chamber to approve the initiative and present it to the Chamber for a general vote: senado.gob.mx
 * A press conference given on 26 February 2009 where they clearly state that the initiative was sent back to the Chamber of Deputies: senado.gob.mx
 * A press article published today, 27 february 2009: "Llama Castellón a evitar que Agencia Especial Mexicana se pierda en archiveros de la Cámara de Diputados" Periodico Express
 * A status report from Steven Gonzalez, Deputy, Advanced Planning Office of NASA, dated 21 February 2009: "our own astronaut, Jose Hernandez is working on a proposal with Mexico to establish Agencia Espacial Mexicana (Mexican Space Agency)." SpaceRef
 * An article from El Universal from 4 November 2008: "El dictamen pasa a la Cámara de Diputados para que siga el procedimiento de análisis, discusión y en su caso aprobación, para posteriormente poder ser publicada por el Poder Ejecutivo si es que no hay cambios al dictamen enviado por el Senado." El Universal
 * An article about the vote in the Senate (from 4 Nov 2008): La minuta fue devuelta a la Cámara de Diputados, en virtud de que sufrió cambios con relación a como había llegado de esa colegisladora. En caso de que los diputados ratifiquen las modificaciones, el decreto será turnado al Ejecutivo para su publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Federación. Crónica

If needed, I can add dozens more. Their claims are absolutely ridiculous. - José Gnudista (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the newspapers are creating a hoax, take it to them. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The newspapers aren't creating a hoax, you are the one. The only newspaper you are using is El Universal which, in case you missed it in the list I published above, asserts that the initiative was sent back to the Chamber of Deputies! Exactly what part of "El dictamen pasa a la Cámara de Diputados para que siga el procedimiento de análisis, discusión y en su caso aprobación, para posteriormente poder ser publicada por el Poder Ejecutivo si es que no hay cambios al dictamen enviado por el Senado." is the one that you don't understand? El Universal. And by the way, your second "reference" (the fansite) has published, as of 27 February 2009, "A call to avoid losing the Mexican Space Agency in the files of the Chamber of Deputies" ("Llamado a evitar que AEXA se pierda en archivos de Cámara de Diputados") You have no sources whatsoever. - José Gnudista (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The entry is referenced and it comes down to your Point of View against Wikipedia's policies. Good luck. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policies request material to be referenced, in short: that an authoritative third-party supports your exact claim, not to attach two links and claim whatever you want. - José Gnudista (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The predecessor of the AEM, the CONEE operated sounding rockets. But there is no proof given that the AEM continues with those activities in the reference given in the List of space agencies AEM entry. Tom Paine (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on the legal status of the Mexican Space Agency
The Mexican Space Agency is a proposed federal authority contained in an initiative that is getting favorable votes in the Mexican Congress but is still under discussion (it was modified and sent back to the originating chamber). Two users (BatteryIncluded and Jesusmariajalisco) insist that, if an initiative is approved in the Senate, the institution is created automatically and provide no reference at all about such theory, just a pair of links that reports on the result of a vote. References on the contrary are provided above the RFC. - José Gnudista (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Agencia Espacial Mexicana article covers the status of the proposal fine. And it is prima facie absurd to argue that a legislative proposal which hasn't yet completed its course constitutes the actual creation of an agency. Even when it is, it'll require executive action. It is not unusual for legislative initiatives to be approved, but never put into effect. Put it this way - if/when the proposal is passed, we can say that for an agency like this, until it has an official website, it doesn't really exist. Rd232 talk 14:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on the Mexican Space Agency. The Mexican Space Agency was created on the 30th of July, 2010 when its law was published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. Its Board of Governors was installed on the 7th of September, 2010. It is presided by Secretary of Communications and Transportation. The official acronym by the Board of Governors is AEM, and the official website is http://www.aem.gob.mx spaceale 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.174.49.50 (talk)

Four separate tables instead of one
Please have a look at the following proposed changes. By using four separate tables instead of one, according to the level of achievements of each space agencies, this will provide a clearer and faster picture to the readers. The previous table was overloaded and confusing while containing less information.

—222.214.45.162（talk） 公历二〇〇九年三月卅一日 （星期二）农历三月初五 十三时卅九 （标准北京中央时间）

Soviet Space Agency
There seems to be a question as to whether the Mexican Space Agency should be listed or not, which hinges on the fact that while it is in the process of being set up, it does not currently exist. Why therefore is the Soviet Space Agency listed? The Soviet Space Agency does not exist anymore. It is important to have the agency listed as a historical agency, but if this page is only about current agencies, then the Soviet Space agency should not be listed. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The budget numbers for European countries include both their ESA budget contribution and their own budget
For instance Germany contributes about 50% of its total budget to ESA and uses the rest for its own programs. A comment should be added to that effect.Themanwithoutapast (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. The ESA portion should not be included in the country. Otherwise, this screws up the total. I have posted a few reliable resources in the section. Can someone verify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.20.251 (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ASI´s Budget
According to ASI´s page in wikipedia the budget of the italian space agency is $978 million, so it should be below India and China.--88.26.57.82 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If African space history can be dated back to 1986, how come no African country budget was reflected in the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.134.117 (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

private space companies?
Maybe we should compile a similar list with capabilities of private space companies? Alinor (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * List of private spaceflight companies Alinor (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE
There needs to be more info on space agencies :) Mickman1234 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"operates moon base"
they listed as nasa currently operating a moon base, break out the tin foil hats. I corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.61.204.112 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone excessively optimistic seems to have added "operates moon base", with even a wrong entry, as stated above. Do we really need a column that is filled with only "no"'s ? Also changed title of this discussion section. -- 89.247.67.47 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

okay up date is needed
China has an astronaut and has launched a rocket and it's astronaut into space, so the info. needs to be up dated. Arizona86002 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Astronauts
The classification of "Capabilities of the space agency - Astronauts" appears highly inconsistent. Some countries are listed "yes" whose nationals have only been trained and flown on other agencies programmes. In some cases even selected by other programmes but not yet flown and so that nation doesn't even have any actual astronauts yet.

For example Denmark and India. As far as I can make out no Dane has yet gone into space, but one was recently selected as a candidate by ESA's EAC. He isn't yet an astronaut and there is no certainty he will go into space. Similarly India's only astronauts so far have been a Russian-trained fighter pilot and a dual-national in Nasa's astronaut programme. These are just examples of what I mean, it applies for a number of other agencies listed as "yes".

But on the flip-side there have been a number of British-American astronauts who joined Nasa's programme, A British astronaut candidate recently selected by ESA just like the Dane and even a private citizen trained and launched by the Soviets. And yet it isn't listed. Again this is an example, if the requirement is simply for that nation to have or perhaps sometime in the future have an astronaut many more agencies should be included which aren't.

Also, while I can see that the ESA members that had their own astronaut corps are listed while those that didn't aren't, the ones that did don't now because those functions were transferred to the EAC so they don't have such "capability". And as I've already said this is inconsistent because other agencies are listed which never trained any of their own astronauts anyway. So either all ESA member agencies who have had astronauts should be listed or none of them.

As the category is "capabilities of a space agency", It doesn't really make any sense to include agencies that cannot currently at least train their own astronauts. Any agency can pay for their nationals to be trained by another country's agency, or have had their nationals (or more usually joint-nationals) fly as an astronaut in another space programme. To have astronaut capability should really only apply to agencies that can at least fully train them, if not actually launch them, as that is the only real distinction that implies any real capability. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. About ESA - same for launch capability - see below. Alinor (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Launch capable agencies (Iran, ESA)

 * Iran is missing, but it is properly listed here.
 * ESA is listed, France is listed, UK is not listed. I understand this as: France has separate capability/launcher program from the ESA launchers. UK has no such separate program. If France has no separate program, but the meaning of listing it there is, because the ESA program has much of its design/manufacturing done in France - I think this should be explicitly mentioned, but also this borders on OR/POV, as somebody has to distinguish "much of" from "small part of" (for example Spain, Germany, other ESA states) - so it would be good if some sources are provided in addition to an explanatory footnote. Alinor (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GASA
When's the Global Aeronautics and Space Adminstration going to happen? What happens if the Klingons and/or Daleks decide to attack TOMORROW??? We're totally unprepared! But seriously, if Humankind ever did attempt to reach out into the depths of the Solar System and beyond, it surely has to be a global effort. I reckon that Humankind has the wherewithall to launch a probe to Alpha Centuri right now, if it had a mind to do so. Such a probe would HAVE to be launched in the name of all Humanity, wouldn't it...? I don't know what I'm blathering about...an appeal for unity between all nations in scientific endevour, I guess... 82.5.68.95 (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True. But this is the article's talk page, not a forum for discussions.--115.69.252.126 (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

European flag
it seems that some people don't understand the European flag, they think that to use it all of Europe should be represented? EU uses it, but the EU only has 27 member states. all people in Europe can use it, if they want to.

citation from link,

This is the European flag. It is the symbol not only of the European Union but also of Europe's unity and identity in a wider sense. The circle of gold stars represents solidarity and harmony between the peoples of Europe. http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm

In the Ryder Cup between Europe and USA,  Europe uses the flag,  but there Isn't  any players from Finland - ukraine - Greece - Russia - Turkey - Serbia - Belgium, but that don't mean anything,  Russia could use if they want to, all organisations located in Europe can adopt it. Here the Georgian president uses it side by side with the Georgian flag. http://www.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,3596219_1,00.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3837722,00.html&usg=__ctQgZ7NP5SZjK8UCyc11qQSg7VI=&h=143&w=194&sz=8&hl=da&start=9&zoom=0&tbnid=JFnd5a1gxAqR1M:&tbnh=76&tbnw=103&ei=7VhiTdLMJpKBswado5C6CA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deuropean%2Bflag%2Bsaakashvili%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dda%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1

The flag is also used by the Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=symboles&l=en  it has 47 members   http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe&l=en  from Iceland in the west to Russia and Turkey in the east.

I don't think its very hard to understand, that this flag can be used to represent anything European,   EU - Council of Europe - ESA - Ryder Cup,  it just means anything European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.46 (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, first you all need to calm down. Please listen to me carefully. The problem arises from the fact that someone decided to put "Europe" in the country list. Europe is neither a country nor a unified political supranational entity. Therefore it has no flag. The Council of Europe has a flag, the European Union has a flag, but Europe doesn't. Europe doesn't have a space agency either. There are several European agencies engaged in space activities (eg. EUSC, ESO, EUMETSAT) and ESA is only one of them. ESA does not represent the entirety of the European states; it only represents its 18 current member states. In the column "Country" those are the ones that should be mentioned. I propose that the first column should read "ESA member states" (because those ARE countries - ESA is not a country) and the second column should remain as it is (European Space Agency). I rest my case. CostaDax (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 80.196.3.46, that ESA must be shown with the european flag,  the flag is europes flag and ESA is a european space agency    so there is nothing to talk about, the flag belongs to all the member states. The flag stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.171 (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Europe is not a country. As per wiki rules for list of states, only sovereign nations are included in these lists and when a non-sovereign entity is included that entity must be noted out as such. In case of Europe, putting the flag of EU is going to give the impression that EU is a nation state which is not true. Furthermore not all countries in Europe contribute to ESA. Both the article and the budget list are for nation states which are sovereign. Any entity public or private or corporate conglomeration which is to be included must be clearly separate and distinguishable by any reader on wikipedia. There are many space agencies in the world, private and public. This article only deals with those agencies which are sovereign. The inclusion of ESA is there only because it is important and all its members are sovereign. But the article must distinguish between the fact that ESA is a collection of nations working on some projects while the rest of agencies are independent national agencies. It would be proper to use ESA logo with it since not all European nations are contributing in ESA. If EU flag is to be used then a collapsible list of countries involved should be available for view in the same list. --119.156.17.164 (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people seem to be focusing on the (to my mind) not so relevant fact that not all EU member states are members of ESA. I may have overlooked something, but no-one seems to have noticed that at least two ESA member states - Norway and Switzerland - aren't members of the EU at all, and probably won't be for some considerable time to come (if ever - there isn't a majority in either country in favour of joining). There's a widespread and confusing habit (in many European languages) of talking about 'Europe' and 'the European Union' as if they meant the same thing. Comments about 'Europe's flag' are surely irrelevant, since there's no such thing - the blue thing with yellow stars on it is the EU flag, which only represents 28 of Europe's countries. ESA is not an EU organisation, any more than the Council of Europe (47 member states, nearly twice as many as the EU) or CERN. If ESA were EU-based, it might make sense to include it in an article entitled 'List of government space agencies', since the EU is effectively a government - it issues legislation that is binding on all its member states, and has a High Representative responsible for foreign affairs. But ESA surely doesn't belong in an article with such a title. Would changing the title help?188.200.168.81 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hungary is missing in the ESA list of countries--Dutchy45 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.77.83 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two "Not the esa flags":


 * [[File:Not the esa logo.png]] 24px wide, File:Not the esa logo.png


 * Inspired be the original one, I created the next one to be 22px wide (as all the flag icons are) – unfortunately it is not as beautiful as the first one:


 * [[File:Not the esa flag.png]] File:Not the esa flag.png


 * Plus I created a round logo surrogate:


 * [[File:Not the esa logo 2.png]]


 * It can be used like that:


 * Tony Mach (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

International Space Station Cost and annual Budget
Would anyone be interested in helping out with the ISS budget, across the english-speaking world, there are no proper totals I can find, even though this information is sure to exist somewhere. Every major media outlet makes poor guesses as to the cost..

Is there any hope for something like this ?

Total annual ISS budget there is basically nothing I can find that says what the total cost of the ISS is... Please discuss this idea here Talk:International_Space_Station rather than on this page.

Penyulap  talk 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Retitiling or amendment needed
Article includes "List of space agencies with manned spaceflight capability", "List of achievements of space agencies with lunar landing capability". NASA now lacks manned launch capability; it will lose flight capability when Atlantis re-enters. NASA lost lunar landing capability in late 1972. Either NASA should be removed from those lists, or the headings should be altered. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, NASA needs to be re-classified. Ctetc2007 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. NASA has no capability for manned missions. Soyuz rockets are used and launched from Baikonur. Procuring a manned launch should not be considered capability for manned missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.213.126 (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of Classifications
What exactly does "manned space flight" mean? Does it mean "manned space launch" capable, or just that it has a something that is manned and going through space? NASA is in a very strange case for at least the next 10 years. It has astronauts, it operates a space station, but it has no manned space launch capability. Where does that put it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.206 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a clarification on wheter the list must contain current or historical information is needed. That is, should the Soviet Space Programme be listed? Should the capabilities of NASA include or not "Manned Lunar Exploration"? Tom Paine (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Poland's "space agency"
Poland does not have a space agency. Read this recent article from the Warsaw Business Review (pgs 10-11). They plan to create one, but the plans have not been made official yet. CBK is definitely their most active space organization, but to list it as an "agency" is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.79.208.68 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Italy launch capability
Hey guys!

I think you should include also Italy among countries that possess a launch capability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_rocket

Since France is included on the basis that the Ariane program has much of its design/manufacturing done in France, you should include also Italy on the same basis since much of the design/manufacturing of the Vega rocket is done in Italy, that is also (1) the leading contributor (more than 65%). (2) the italian space agency partecipate jointly with ESA in the development and fielding of that rocket. That is, it is not an ESA project financed by Italy, it is a project lead by the italian space agency in which ESA (of which the italian space agency is a member) partecipates.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.53.70.50 (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Italy has no launch facilities. The Vega was launched from esa facilities in Guyana and was developed along with the esa.  This seems far enough away from a domestic development and launch program.--RadioFan (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Italy was the third Nation capable to launch a satellite into space, far in December 15, 1964 (San Marco 1 satellite). Next, Italy own their launch platform Broglio Space Centre since 26 April 1967 - Bubu 2014-08-30 21:37 CET  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.180.210 (talk)

World maps: USA and human space flight
As someone already wrote on the discussion page: The map File:Human spaceflight.svg needs to be recolored since the USA doesn't have an active human space flight program at the moment. They're now at the same level as the European states. --StYxXx (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but no one seems to care about that and the colour in the tables (telling that U.S. is able to send a man, while temporarily they are not). The fact is, NASA currently lacks possibility to send a human into space. Certainly this is temporal, however this is the fact. Otherwise you can put e.g. ESA as an agency able to send humans, as they can contract Russians or rush and put some capsule on Ariane 5, which is human rated in terms of safety... aegis maelstrom δ 19:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Iranian Space Budget given is not yearly but for 5 years combined
As per the article cited for Iranian space Budget, $500 million budget is for 5 years which means, the yearly budget is $100 million. The Space Budgets of other nations (i just checked the ones above Iran) given in the list is for yearly.

This is the relevant comment from the website cited for Iranian space budget "Iran launched its first satellite in 2005 aboard a Russian rocket, and began developing Omid in 2006, a year after the Iranian government announced it would spend $500 million on a domestic space program between 2005 and 2010." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.245.27 (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"Yes" to NASA or "No" to the Soviet Union.
December 11 2012 Uçan ispanyol downgraded NASA's "manned spaceflight capability to "No"-"No", probably because of the space shuttle's retirement. But where is the logic; even today the long-gone Soviet Union seems to be capable of doing anything in space. Either the Soviet column should be full of "No"s, or the headline should be something like "…achievements…" or "…Accomplished tasks…" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no one has replied, I must assume that you all concur ;-) --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. And this article is all over the place in how it indicates capabilities. Yes / no columns, color legends, separate tables? Not sure what to do about this. Connor Behan (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is fallacious. Evidently, you have no choice but to represent the Soviet space program as it was at the moment where it last had any meaning. The program, while terminated having been replaced by another one, did in the end still possess launch capacity at the time it was disbanded. NASA, however, at this moment does not. I propose, to reflect that additional dimension of information, that NASA's launch capacity be marked with "used to", or something similar, with a yellow background, like is often done in other lists comparing capabilities on Wikipedia. Gyzome (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The "APSCO" link is just prety much SPAM!
The external link for the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization just takes the user to an on-hold website and not thing else can someone fix this to the correct website if one currently exists? -- Sion8 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ The external link is corrected. It now links to APSCO website. Thanks ! - Ninney (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool thank you! -- Sion8 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

MAPS ARE MISLEADING AND DATED
maps at the end of this article need to be updated as a lot have changed since 2009 (e.g ESA enlargement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.83.253.90 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)95.83.253.90 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Naw, not a good list
Lacks NASDA, lacks the NRO. Nice try. Keep compiling. 71.38.136.222 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

New space agency from the United Arab Emirates.
The United Arab Emirates (UEA) founded in 2015 its space agency; it is called [[Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Center](]) and they have a funded project for a Mars orbiter called Mars Hope to be launched in 20121. I am not familiar with this Wikipedia list, so I will leave it to more competent hands to add it appropriately. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

British/Australian rocket programme
The UK/Australia had limited launch capabilities in the late 1960s that were cancelled ca 1971 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_space_programme#British_space_vehicles_.281950.E2.80.931985.29). These were not a single space agency but run by a succession of departments. Whilst not explicitly labelled as "space agency" at that time, and despite constant re-branding of the government body responsible, this was a government programme and feels like it should be included in the table "List of space agencies with launch capability". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astronomyblog (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a bit about the proposed Australian Space Agency, which has recently been initiated. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-13/space-agency-on-the-cards-as-australia-announces-review/8703740; for source. This is from the Australian Broadcasting Company website, a reliable source.

Czech Space Office and Ministry of Transport of the Czech Republic
It seems the Czech Space Office is more involved in space. Can anyone familiar with the country or organizations improve upon this area? Twillisjr (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

SSP
Has anyone done any significant research on "Solar Warden?" I'd like to create a page on it but I don't know where to start. Anonlithium (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Start with Draft:Solar Warden. Make sure to use reliable sources. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union  ‖ 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of government space agencies. 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/20131024170713/http://news.belta.by/en/news/society?id=691323 to http://news.belta.by/en/news/society?id=691323
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228194440/http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620681/n771918/index.html to http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620681/n771918/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140406054614/http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2014/201403/news31/20140331-24ee.html to http://kcna.co.jp/item/2014/201403/news31/20140331-24ee.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060705030049/http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html to http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C06%5C04%5Cstory_4-6-2009_pg7_16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620201421/http://www.apsco.int/ to http://www.apsco.int/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010713173220/http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html to http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of government space agencies. 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/20091201204204/http://www.inta.es/programasAltaTecnologia.aspx?Id=1&SubId=2 to http://www.inta.es/programasaltatecnologia.aspx?Id=1&SubId=2
 * Added tag to http://www.minzuwang.com/inc/news_view.asp?newsid=12503
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905034310/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/iiaorion.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/iiaorion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132200112600/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shenzhou.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/shenzhou.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.planejamento.gov.br/secretarias/upload/Arquivos/sof/PLOA2015/Volume_IV_TomoI_PLOA_2015.pdf
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100402172717/http%3A//www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/ to http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210144855/http://www.most.gov.il/English/Units/Science/Israel+Space+Agency/default.htm to http://www.most.gov.il/English/Units/Science/Israel+Space+Agency/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010713173220/http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html to http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210144855/http://www.most.gov.il/English/Units/Science/Israel+Space+Agency/default.htm to http://www.most.gov.il/English/Units/Science/Israel+Space+Agency/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of government space agencies. 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/20100727015753/http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/About-Us/8012.aspx to http://www.ukspaceagency.bis.gov.uk/About-Us/8012.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.planejamento.gov.br/secretarias/upload/Arquivos/sof/PLOA2015/Volume_IV_TomoI_PLOA_2015.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010713173220/http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html to http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html
 * Added tag to http://new.kari.re.kr/english/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hungary has become a member of ESA but isn't shown.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of government space agencies. 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 tag to http://www.aeronomie.be/en/contact/whoarewe.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408022654/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-02/11/c_13172247.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-02/11/c_13172247.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.isro.org/about_isro.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307013450/http://www.angkasa.gov.my/welcome/about_us/background.php to http://www.angkasa.gov.my/welcome/about_us/background.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521140133/http://www.conae.gov.ar/eng/sobre/antecedentes.html to http://www.conae.gov.ar/eng/sobre/antecedentes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311064544/http://www.sparrso.gov.bd/intro.html to http://sparrso.gov.bd/intro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131714170300/http://www.asi.it/en/storia to http://www.asi.it/en/storia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712235215/http://www.thespacereport.org/resources/government/intl_budgets.php to http://www.thespacereport.org/resources/government/intl_budgets.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720142818/http://www.inta.es/IntaEnCifras.aspx to http://www.inta.es/IntaEnCifras.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922155709/http://www.science.az/en/amaka/agentlik/index.htm to http://www.science.az/en/amaka/agentlik/index.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.drsi.dk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302033215/http://www.cnt.nat.tn/ to http://www.cnt.nat.tn/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010713173220/http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html to http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122124720/http://www.uzay.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitakUzay/en/root/ to http://www.uzay.tubitak.gov.tr/tubitakUzay/en/root/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of government space agencies. 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/20131714170300/http://www.asi.it/en/storia to http://www.asi.it/en/storia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010713173220/http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html to http://www.satnews.com/stories/3may2001-4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Help request
Turkey has created its new space agency please add in list Turkish Space Agency Also found sources.

Found sources


 * I have updated the entry for Turkey. Huon (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Lunar landing capabilities make no sense
This is far too specific - why The Moon?. For example ESA has landed on Titan which I would consider "lunar landing". I suggest changing it to "Agencies with capabilities to land on celestial bodies (other than Earth)" and list ESA and JAXA as well. Sergiusz.olszewski (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. Besides why is Russia (or at least Soviet Union) missing? Nsae Comp (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sort by prominence or nationality
I was looking for the USA's space program, and it was hard to find. Doesn't America have one of the biggest or most successful one's? What is it called? NASA, I think. Is it being buried on purpose, so the minor ones of small countries will look equally prominent? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It MUST be sorted, at least by alphabetical order. Now everything is just completely mixed up and unfindable. I'll tag this nonsense. —Loginnigol 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Australia-New Zealand Space Agency
Hello. I think that the Australia-New Zealand Space Agency is only a fan page and nothing official so it should be deleted from the chapter Expected and proposed future space agencies. The source is a facebook page where the contact email is stealth10@y7mail.com. Not an official government Adresse. The Australien government wrote only (Source) that the will work together and in the text is not mentioned the Australia-New Zealand Space Agency. I think we should delete this because in my view this is only a fan wish and not real. Maybe I'm wrong but please add better sources. -Malo95 (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Add Bangladesh
They operate only satellite made by others. Name SPARRSO Greatder (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Belize Space Agency
Hello, Is Belize have their own space agency? I'm searched "Belize Space Agency" on Google Search these results aren't providing articles about Belize Space Agency or Belize's first satellite Yuliadhi (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

African Space Agency officially inaugurated
The African Space Agency has been officially inaugurated, so this article should be changed to reflect that (and presumably a full article should also be created) 212.186.238.122 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Color Code Names of Space Agencies
Please Read This Full, Thanks!

Adding Color Code to the name of space agencies like before is very essential because:

1) It helps viewers to understand a lot of information about the Space Agencies in a fast and easy way.

2) Showing information with help of colors and pictures helps a person to understand more information.

3) Understand what a general reader want: Almost 5-7 months ago I myself was tired when I was searching for "name of space agencies with all of their achievements" and no website was providing with solid information, but than I found an article on Wikipedia titled "List of Government Space Agencies" and at that time I as a normal viewer found that whole article so helpful that I bookmarked it and I also donated a little amount of money to Wikipedia (I couldn't donate much because I am a student and I have donated what I got on my birthday) via my papa's Wikipedia account. I am giving my example because I here represents an a normal internet surfer who just wants answer to his queries in easy way.

Disadvantages of current "List of government space agencies" Page:

1) People are shown a big table which shows name of space agencies without Color code, which will cause them to loose their interest in further reading the page as users are shown so much data without an engaging thing (For Eg: Colors).

2) The color code before was like a badge given to space agencies which appreciates their achievements and viewers also come to know that "Oh! this Space Agency is ahead of that Space Agency" this leads that user to read even more about different space agencies and in this age of TikTok if a young person is reading these kind of things we should appreciate him/her and provide them with better and helpful content.

So long story short, Color Coding things really saves time of users, provide them with more information in less time and users also becomes happy as they got quality info with ease. KrishanVerma171 (talk) 07:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the discussion. If by color you mean the prior format that existed up to a few weeks ago, I found the prior color use to be overwhelming and not constructive. I am the editor that made the changes to the article in the last few weeks noting that the article had remained in a relative state of dis-repair (multiple issues) for a year or more.
 * One color scheme is already employed to signify each of the defined accomplishments (Yes/No, the columns). Additional accomplishments were also added that did not exist in the prior version (that may require a re-think of a second color scheme)
 * Most of the colors in the identified prior structure ("second scheme") applied only to a few entities; I felt that the segregated tables did that better without the use of additional colors in several tables.
 * I also found the the color identifications were not readily "proven" in many cases. There were history references for some but the level of detail in many did not sustain the use of the color. Part of the article rebuild was to establish a more stable narrative with references/links to validate each claim. The "Yes" entries are now defended by a mission linkage or reference. The table also needed to be narrower to conform with wikipedia standards.
 * A second color scheme would also need to update across four tables if an entity "graduates" from one defined solution to another which is more complicated from an editor perspective. Seemed challenging to retain given the lack of material update in the article to fix the flagged issues for some time.
 * I do not believe your proposed use of colors allow for sorting from a table perspective as well. Also, the singular progession identified by your discussed color scheme (if the one from the prior version of the article) no longer has the significance that it once did (as the article discusses - cold war). The ability for agencies/countries to develop capability is much more diversified than had previously existed and there are not pre-defined paths to a more mature capability.
 * Happy to discuss further...SpaceHist65 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You have more valid points than me. And after reading your reply I came to know that the new page of "List of Government Space Agencies" is indeed better than the previous one. I really appreciates the hard work you have done in editing this page for making it better and more informative, Please keep editing and improving Wikipedia pages so that they stay more informative than they have been. Thankyou for your reply! as I also got a lot to know from you and Sorry for posting an unhelpful Topic, I will be more open minded and will explore things fully before suggesting improvements form next time.
 * Keep up the good work Sir/Mam! Thankyou! KrishanVerma171 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Image
I found this image that I think would be a nice addition to this article: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fid6nhbxo09ac1.png&xpromo_edp=enabled However I have no clue how to "translate" it into wikicode, so I'll leave it here. Dutchy45 (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Italian Space Agency Budget Forecast
I edited the Italian Space Agency budget for the year 2024, based on the official ASI document discosure available at https://asi.portaleamministrazionetrasparente.it/archivio29_bilanci_0_2338_731_1.html I seem to not have been able to modify the old link and have not archived the link or document itself, as I don't know how to. If someone has the time to correct my mistake, please do so. Thanks 2A01:CB04:12C:BF00:D03D:98B6:41A5:54A2 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)