File talk:Human spaceflight.svg

This map is not correct! Why Bulgaria is not included ? We have 3 astronauts.

Bulgarians did fly to space with the russian programme, this map is about own national space programms. Example : European countries are marked as planned programme, almost all of them already hat astronauts. -- 89.247.67.47 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Spaceflight capability

Please update the USA color, currently NASA has no independent Human spaceflight program

--Csendesmark (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be clear blue and not deep blue. The USA at the moment are unable to send any human in space. --80.182.56.74 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK spaceflight capability

I have no idea why the UK is here - it has never been UK policy to have a manned spaceflight programme, and this policy has not changed. The UK is a member of ESA, but has never funded ESA's manned spaceflight programmes nor ESA's contribution to the ISS. Thom2002 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Above poster incorrect: the same reason EU nations are listed, the UK should be readded.

It seems absurd that all other ESA members except the UK be listed, especially when numerous astronauts of the ESA are from the UK. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is a member of ESA but specifically does not contribute to or fund any human spaceflight agenda. The British astronauts have all flown with non-UK funded space programmes, and 'off their own back' rather than as part of any formal British contribution. They just happen to be British by nationality. Thom2002 (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ If this is the case then shouldn't most of the ESA countries be removed. Greece is highlighted, but it doesn't contribute to ISS missions; it is ridiculous to highlight all other ESA countries but not the UK. Besides, previous missions are irrelevant: the map shows FUTURE plans for ESA flight, which include all ESA members including the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.249.107 (talk) 13:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that nations which do not participate in any human spaceflight programme should not be shown as having a human spaceflight capability. The ESA convention specifically states that if you do not fund a programme, then you have no stake in it, even though you are a member of the over-arching ESA agreements. In article XI of the convention, "a Member State shall not have the right to vote on matters concerning exclusively an accepted programme in which it does not take part." Thom2002 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS ESA programmes come in two categories: Optional and mandatory. Being part of ESA means that you are part of the mandatory programmes, but not necessarily the optional ones. The manned spaceflight programmes are optional. ESA are free to recruit astronauts from any ESA country, whether or not they participate. That's why we have the slightly odd situation of a British astronaut in a non-British programme. Some have speculated that this may be a way to pressure the UK into joining through publicity around the British astronaut. Thom2002 (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]