Talk:Timeline of first orbital launches by country

message: I realize it was launched by the Americans, but this satellite has all-Canadian engineering. What are the precise guidelines concerning this list? Radagast 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the intro: "have sent objects into orbit using their own launch systems. " Rmhermen 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, building a sattelite is meaningless unless you can launch it. Vastu 09:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but shouldn't the Alouette be listed in the "Not Included" section if Australia's subsequent launch, also using an American launcher, is included?  The Canadian satellite was launched in 1962. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.79.161 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are several other countries that have had satellites launched by third parties, not just Canada and Australia.  Some of these have been developed "in-house", others contracted out to the third party with the more developed space program.  This activity probably deserves a different list.--Pharos 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Alouette 1]]? 

message: I thought their first launch in 1970 was a failure, and the launch infact took place in 1971?  Or are we including 'almost successfull' launches, in which case, India's was 1979? Vastu 09:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article and its links the 1970 launch was a success - which is the purpose of this list -not failures. Rmhermen 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: Query: Why is the ESA included in this list, even if it is granted that it is a single entity?  In any sense of which I am aware, the ESA is neither a nationality nor a nation, nor does it have standing in either category with the United Nations.  "Nationality" implies a wide range of features, and the ESA exhibits virtually none of them.  The ESA is a space agency.  Perhaps a solution is the change the entry to refer to the "EU", instead.
However, a question may also be asked whether it is appropriate to include international efforts such as represented by the ESA as an entry on the list if international efforts such as Canada's and Australia's are not.
Further, please consider that the inclusion of the ESA means that the efforts of two of the ESA's countries (the U.K. and France) are double-counted, since they each are listed as having launched their own satellites.  I have a philosophical problem with this double-counting, because part of the reason behind having the list of nationalities capable of satellite launches is the denotation of the level of development of such nationality.  If, as patently obvious, two nations in and of themselves had already launched their own satellites, as is the case with Britain and France, then it is logical to conclude that their combined efforts would be sufficient to do so, as well.  In this sense, the listing of ESA's launch is a mere superfluity because it only restates the obvious fact that the nations that make up the ESA are satellite launch-capable.  We already know this from the fact that France, a founding member of the ESA, launched its first satellite well prior to the formation of the ESA.  This said, therefore, what does naming the ESA's first launch contribute to our understanding of "nationalities" and their capability to launch satellites into space?
:This also raises the question of the Soviet Union and Russia (and perhaps, Ukraine).  See below.  But the ESA is an actual space agency that is not a direct successor to anything else so it probably deserves its own entry.--Pharos 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESA 

message: I suggest we need clearer guidelines.  Which items of the following have to be "in-house" to a country for a launch to qualify: (1) the rocket, (2) the satellite, (3) the launch facility, (4) the space agency conducting the launch.  The rocket seems like the most basic criterion, but if that's all we're looking at we've missed Ukraine's Zenit rocket and its other launchers, which however seems to fall short on the other points.  Or is Ukraine's "first" already considered filled by the Soviet Union launches?--Pharos 17:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Few versions of Zenit-3 rockets that ordered by Russia and Sea Launch may be considered as Ukrainian-Russian (not a Ukrainian only) due to joint Ukrainian-Russian development and production of 1-st and 2-nd stages in Ukraine and of 3-rd stages in Russia. Two-staged Zenit-2 rocket is made fully by Ukraine but for purchase by Russia for Russian satellites only. But few times since 1995 Ukraine launched own satellites by Tsyklon rocket which produced completely in Ukraine like Zenit-2. About this case (similar to France and UK) see below 193.232.252.254 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I support the suggestion that ESA be removed -- it isn't a country or a nationality. I support the requirement that the launch vehicle and rocket engines must be manufactured in and launched from the territorial boundaries of the country in question. (Someone should figure out the first orbital launch from within post-Soviet Russia. Maybe a launch from Plesetsk Cosmodrome?) I support the requirement that the organization performing the launch must be strongly associated with the nationality in question. I weakly oppose the requirement that the satellite payload must be constructed within the country in question, as this timeline is rather more about launch capability than it is about satellite construction. (In the power politics of launch capability, the satellites are mainly just placeholders for warheads anyway. ;-) (sdsds - talk) 07:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the problem is this would cut out Prospero X-3, which is I think a pretty widely-acknowledged "first launch" as the premier (and only) such effort by UK, which did however take off from Australian soil.  So, if we agree to include the UK, and not add Ukraine, it seems we should go for (1) and (4).--Pharos 03:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer guidelines - ESA, Ukraine, UK, France? 

message: The ESA really doesn't fit into the "nationality" paradigm at all.  Perhaps this should be renamed Timeline of first orbital launches by governmental space programs or something to that effect?--Pharos 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been renamed Timeline of first orbital launches by country as the result of a move request listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dekimasuよ! 09:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: As early as 1967, Britain had launched its first satellite: Ariel 3. It was lauched from the USA, but it would still count as the first British orbital launch wouldn't it? The BBC describes it as "the first All-British satellite". --J. Atkins (talk | contribs) 10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been an "all-British satellite", but it was launched by the American Scout rocket.--Pharos 09:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks; I've noted this in the Not included section.--J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: See Ariel 1 and Ariel programme. According to those, Britain was the third nation to put a satellite in space. 92.28.249.93 (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No they don't. Its launch in 1962 made the United Kingdom the third country to operate a satellite, after the Soviet Union and the USA..  "Operate" and "launch independantly" are two completely different things. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The section of the text being discussed isn't about independent launches, but rather satellite construction. The Canandian example that you reverted to is roughly the same as the British one; a Canadian built satellite that was launched by NASA from an American launchpad. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What section of text being discussed?  This comment is about Ariel 3.  The change the IP made related to Ariel 1 and is false.  No it is not equivalent, Ariel 1 was built by the US, not Britain.  Alouette 1 was independantly built by Canada. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ChiZeroOne, I don't understand your position. What does the country in which the satellite was built have to do with this article? --GW… 17:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well everything according to the other comments made here in terms of whether it counts as a first.  From above, "The section of the text being discussed isn't about independent launches, but rather satellite construction." as well as the first comment here.  And indeed if you want to base things on sources I can find plenty that refer to Ariel 3 as the first British satellite (e.g.  etc). The article at present doesn't take a stance on what counts as a "British" or "Canadian" satellite so there's clearly going to be a disagreement about it. I, other commentors, and plenty of sources use the definition that the satellite be built by the country involved.  Simply operating another country's satellite displays little capability, actually having the industrial capability to build satellites of your own however is significant. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

text: One of the satellites mentioned explicitly is KazSat-1, which was built by Russia for Kazakhstan. The link which immediately precedes the disputed statement is to a list based on operator, not builder. In modern usage, operator is almost always used (, , etc). In either case the statement adds absolutely nothing to the article, and could just be removed. --GW… 07:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't Ariel 3 count? 

message: A South Korean launch (Korea Space Launch Vehicle I [KSLV-I]) from their new spaceport is upcoming. But when? Initially reported as sometime in 2007, it now seems to have slipped to 2008. Can we find anything more exact? Rmhermen 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10876 might help provide some background info. (sdsds - talk) 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't worry, I'm sure we'll all hear about it when they do launch.  I guess it's a race of sorts now between them and Brazil as to who will be next.--Pharos 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brazil is back in the race? I missed that? Rmhermen 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this on Brazil:  It looks like they haven't even started rebuilding their spaceport yet. Rmhermen 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Korea

message: We're long overdue for a Timeline of first satellites by country.  Time to clear out that Not included section.--Pharos 17:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would likely be even more confused than this one. Is it a "first" if your country builds 50% of a satellite? Or builds one instrument? Rmhermen 18:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are two issues actually, building and ownership; Iran didn't build Sinah-1, but it is still considered an Iranian satellite.  If we're going to have a cutoff for joint projects, I think 50% coming from the country would be a reasonable one.--Pharos 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From our article, you can't tell that they didn't build Sinah-1, but that article is a mess. Rmhermen 18:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the original version, which I wrote back in 2005 when it was launched (Why was it deleted in the first place...  national pride? the tendency toward entropy in the universe?  who knows?).  Anyway, I've restored that bit now.  And I'm pretty sure Iran isn't alone in hiring another country to build their satellite.--Pharos 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another list needed 

message: The things that I removed were cluttering up the list.
*The UK entry obviously does not belong here because the British government contracted NASA to do it for them.
*The Iraq entry doesn’t even include a satellite.
*The Iran entry was just a sounding rocket
There are dozens of launches that could be in the “not included” list, and I think there is really no reason to include these ones. – Zntrip 03:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the UK entry, are you saying that the Not included section only lists countries which coodinated their own launch but without their own launch vehicles (as, like you said, the UK contracted NASA for the launch)? If so, ok. However I remember seeing a documentary about the UK having launched satellites from the Isle of Wight (not sure, though). Thanks for your work on this article. --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Zntrip: with this edit you, or someone using your account, added to the article several changes which are difficult to explain as anything other than vandalisms. This doesn't give you much credibility! Is there a  good faith way to explain this? Did you perhaps have difficulty retyping some of the material? (sdsds - talk) 01:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not included 

message: Iran launched a rocket today that put a test satellite in orbit marking the opening on their new space center and response to Israel's recent ICBM test.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.7.157 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most reliable sources are reporting this as a sub-orbital launch of a test vehicle. The plan is to launch the first satellite on a subsequent vehicle. (sdsds - talk) 03:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, DEBKAfile reports the name of the rocket as "Safir 1". They claim it reached space atop an "improved Shahab-3 which has a 4,000 km range". That doesn't make it a satellite in orbit! (sdsds - talk) 05:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran launches rocket 

message: For the sake of brevity and to exclude information that is moving away from the main focus of this page, I propose we remove all content regarding sub-orbital, failed, cancelled, or forthcoming programmes. – Zntrip 18:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it doesn't really belong in this article, but I think we should move it somewhere else, because much of it is valuable information, and people keep adding it here. — Swpbtalk.edits 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be that the "Not included" section is here specifically to discourage other editors from adding this material (for the zillionth time) to the main section. (sdsds - talk) 04:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do that, of course, with hidden text. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming down “Not included” section 

message: I have removed Iran until we have a good source saying it happened already. BBC is ssaying that Iranian media have removed mention of a satellite from their stories. Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A report from Reuters now claims that they launched a dummy satellite only. I would be inclined to add this launch to the list if we could confirm the "dummy" is orbital. Rmhermen (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. is now saying that the launch was a failure with the second stage out of control. Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: Why is not considered in the list the italian San Marco platform? This platform operated many space launches between 1967 and 1988--79.41.117.107 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *This list is for countries developing indigenous launch capability, not for countries that contain launch sites. --GW… 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *Irrelevant. This is a "Timeline of first orbital launches by country", not a List of countries by funding for space research. --GW… 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the article? How did you measure the launch capability of a country? In the sixties Italy built an equatorial launch platform in the Indian Ocean, near the coast of Kenya. The first experimental launch was with the assistance of USA, but after and for twenty years the platform launched and controlled 27 launches, with orbital positioning of Italian, American and British satellites--79.41.117.235 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with a source to cite indicating an orbital launch was conducted from San Marco using any carrier rocket other than a (US made) Scout should please add that source citation to the San Marco article right away! Without that, it's difficult to see San Marco's existence as evidence of Italian orbital launch capability. The first Vega launch, on the other hand, will call into question whether Italy should be credited for this (ESA) programme. (sdsds - talk) 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *Ariane is generally considered European rather than French, so I would suggest we follow the same here. Also calls into question whether the LSP nationality is important to this list (Vega launches will be conducted by Arianespace, which is French). --GW… 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which rather begs the question: is this timeline page inherently biased against countries which accomplish their spaceflight agendas by participating in multinational agencies rather than by unilateral programmes? (sdsds - talk) 04:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Good point. The article about them, Timeline of orbital launch technology development by country, has yet to be written! (sdsds - talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: It was a Canadian satellite on top of an American rocket, launched from the USA. The rocket is the important thing, while a can of baked beans could be a satellite. So it seams unreasonable to include it. Anyone disagree who is not Canadian? Similar reasoning to mine in the Not Included section above was given to exclude a British rocket in the same circumstances. 78.147.249.77 (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A vandal had replaced France with Canada. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada - why include? 

message: What are the "political reasons" for cancelling RSA-3.  This is a pretty meaningless statement because government space agencies are always political.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RSA-3 would seem to the right location for that information. If it isn't mentioned there, it shouldn't be mentioned here either. Rmhermen (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, RSA-3 redirects to an Isreali rocket.  There was collaberation between Israel and South Africa at the time.  Possibly the redirect should be cancelled and a separate article should be written for RSA-3.  I don't know much about it but I could create a fairly rudimentary stub... unless someone with more knowledge wants to volunteer.  Yaris678 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSA-3 "political reasons" 

message: I just added ESA and then saw that there were such debates in the past. My reasoning for adding it - while it is clear that Ariane 1 rocket has dominantly French heritage there was participation in its funding, development, manufacturing and usage by the rest of the partners. It is clear that Denmark will not have contribution equal to France, but in any case Ariane is a joint effort of ESA members. So, they are listed in the footnote (as it would be bad for the layout if we list them in the "Country" column). Also without an ESA entry the table looks like UK/France have abandoned their space launch capabilities (since in contrast to Soviet->Russia/Ukraine there was no entry for UK/France->ESA). Alinor (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, the UK *has* abandoned its spaceflight capabilities. It funded 2.5% of the development costs of Ariane 1, and then pulled out entirely from all subsequent Ariane launcher projects. Therefore it is not accurate to say that the UK has a stake in the Ariane capability, despite being a member of the ESA. This is similar to the ISS - the UK signed the original agreement, but never funded the ISS and has no stake in it, despite being a member of the ESA. Thom2002 (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ESA, again 

message: The first country to have a satellite launched on a non-indigenous rocket was the UK, with Ariel 1. Canada was the first country to build its own satellite for launch on a non-indigenous system, but that is not the issue here, and given the context the current text (Canada instead of the UK) is completely wrong. --GW… 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like in most cases it really depends on definitions.  As established a while ago with the first comments in Talk:Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country#Doesn.27t_Ariel_3_count.3F it seems who the satellite was built by is what editors consider important.  Frankly I don't see why a British operated satellite counts as the first British satellite for the purposes of this article.  However the point is there is no absolute, the point is arguable. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada? 

message: For more information on the Tammouz rocket, see http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Al_Abid/Description/Frame.htm and http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/al-abid.htm. Since the Al Abid rocket never made it into orbit, it might be best to include Iraq in Failed launches section. 68.4.61.168 (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the launch was never confirmed by any other nation or international bodies and only Iraq claimed that space launch had occurred (Iraq had even claimed that they reach orbit but no one else confirmed that). That is why it is in unconfirmed section since it is possible they were just lying for the sake of it. Only a launch that is confirmed internationally to have occurred but failed to reach orbit should be included in failed launches section. --182.185.28.69 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For more information on Iraq's space program, see http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1839/1. The second and third stages of the al-Abid rocket were merely steel mockups (which are not picked up by radar), which partly explains why no one could ever detect the rocket. As a matter of fact, no satellite or warhead was ever mounted on the al-Abid rocket used in the launch, so it's parsiminous to describe the maiden launch of the al-Abid as merely a suborbital launch. Iraq may one day restart its dormant space program initiated under Saddam (as long as the rocket technology isn't used in developing an ICBM). 68.4.28.33 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimming unconfirmed orbital launches section 

message: The map should reflect that the DPRK's launch has been fully confirmed by NORAD and by South Korean scientists. The only remaining question is whether it can accomplish its in-orbit mission. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not as easy to edit a map as the text. I think we could go for a new version with NK red and all the blue and greens removed. Rmhermen (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. It would be simpler. Just the actual launches would suffice. --99.254.188.169 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed NK to red several days ago... --W. D. Graham 22:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't take. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Must be a caching issue - I still see the old version until I click on the image. Rmhermen (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

text: After doing purges of the article, the image page, and the commons image page, North Korea is starting to show up as red. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DPRK orbital launch is confirmed 

message: Currently there are two USSR footnotes in the table:
#The Soviet Union's successor state, Russia, took over the Soviet space program after the Soviet Union's dissolution with Ukraine inheriting a smaller part of the Soviet space program.
#Russia and Ukraine inherited space launcher and satellite capability from the Soviet Union as successor states.
I combined them as:
*The Russian Federation, successor of the Russian SFSR, assumed the Soviet Union's rights and obligations and is recognised as its continued legal personality."Russia is now a party to any Treaties to which the former Soviet Union was a party, and enjoys the same rights and obligations as the former Soviet Union, except insofar as adjustments are necessarily required, e.g. to take account of the change in territorial extent. [...] The Russian federation continues the legal personality of the former Soviet Union and is thus not a successor State in the sense just mentioned. The other former Soviet Republics are successor States.", United Kingdom Materials on International Law 1993, BYIL 1993, pp. 579 (636). Russia, took over the Soviet space program after the Soviet Union's dissolution with Ukraine inheriting a smaller part of the Soviet space program's space launcher and satellite capability.
;References
My edit was reverted citing "effectively synthesis wrt "Legal personality", partially incorrect wrt Ukraine, if it 'ain't broke don't fix it"
The "legal personality" sentence is direct copy from Soviet Union article and is also sourced (see above), clearly no synthesis here. Anyway, it's purpose is only to supplement the unsourced in the status quo "Russia, took over the Soviet space program ... with Ukraine inheriting a smaller part".
What's "partially incorrect wrt Ukraine"? Let's correct it. Jeffsapko (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody disagrees? Jeffsapko (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR footnotes 

message: I moved South Korea's KSLV-1 from List of first orbital launches by country to Launches of non-indigenous launch vehicles. The countries/ organization listed without number are succeeding countries/organization of already numbered countries/organization. European Space Agency is a succeeding organization of the French and the United Kingdom's organization. Ukraine and Russia are succeeding countries of the Soviet Union. The reason South Korea is not numbered is its rocket was not developed by its indigenous technology. So it is legitimate to list South Korea in Launches of non-indigenous launch vehicles.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No such consesus for moving (see above). As matter. Russian assistanse and bought of 1st stage even no becames the KSLV SouthKorean launcher to Russian or multinatinal one, like DPRK's launcher is NorthKorean one despite of some derivaton from Russian Scud rocket with replicated engines. As formality. Sources more than enough for include it as Korean also. 178.205.101.6 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea's KSLV-1 

message: This was deleted from the article without providing sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_first_orbital_launches_by_country&diff=585325305&oldid=585131443
Also there are "planned programs" which actually do not exist. For example in the case of Turkey and Pakistan. --99.244.158.43 (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090208225817/http://www.arcaspace.ro:80/orbital/en/home.htm to http://www.arcaspace.ro/orbital/en/home.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090414160626/http://spacex.com/launch_manifest.php to http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
*Added  tag to http://cns.miis.edu/research/korea/factsht.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1300/sp1300EN1.pdf
*Added  tag to http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/SP1271En_final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414160626/http://spacex.com/launch_manifest.php to http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202005559/http://www.aerospaceguide.net:80/worldspace/pakistan.html to http://www.aerospaceguide.net/worldspace/pakistan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does New Zealand now qualify with the private firm Rocket Lab's launch on 25/05/2017?
News report 1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39971843
News report 2: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11862250  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcknieldRidgeway (talk • contribs) 12:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here to say this 24.182.84.105 (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: So the table lists Ukraine's first launch as  28 September 1991.  Does anyone have proof that this was Ukrainian launch and not Soviet considering that Ukraine hadn't actually voted in Ukrainian Popular Referendum until 1 December 1991 and didn't sign the Belavezha Accords until the 8th of December to actually dissolve the Soviet Union?
And yes I'm aware that they declared independence August 24, 1991, however I don't think anyone can claim that they managed to get the rocket built, shipped to Soviet Russia and Launched in a months time let alone had actual control of the manufacturing.
--Pavlovtherussian (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed Ukrainian 1991 Launch 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.esa.int/esapub/sp/sp1300/sp1300EN1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223012905/http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/ORBIT-LSA/Description/Frame.htm to http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/ORBIT-LSA/Description/Frame.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525045412/http://www.cenariomt.com.br/noticia.asp?cod=175759&codDep=8 to http://www.cenariomt.com.br/noticia.asp?cod=175759&codDep=8
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724224154/http://space.com/missionlaunches/brazil_launch_041023.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/brazil_launch_041023.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) 07:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. 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/20132201173700/http://www.astronautix.com/sites/woomera.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/sites/woomera.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.aeb.gov.br/download/revista/RevistaAEB_n12.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613015114/http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/08/12/turkey-going-ballistic-eyes-space-launched-vehicle/ to http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/08/12/turkey-going-ballistic-eyes-space-launched-vehicle/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808151323/http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Taimur_SLV/Description/Frame.htm to http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/Taimur_SLV/Description/Frame.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409020021/https://fas.org/spp/guide/dprk/new25-98.htm to https://fas.org/spp/guide/dprk/new25-98.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409031953/https://fas.org/news/dprk/1998/980914db.html to https://fas.org/news/dprk/1998/980914db.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208100458/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHUK289cXDGGXgORQOZd3sPwrKdQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hHUK289cXDGGXgORQOZd3sPwrKdQ
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) 07:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Timeline of first orbital launches by country. 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/20132201173700/http://www.astronautix.com/sites/woomera.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/sites/woomera.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) 10:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is another hard case and needs to be discussed here first. At least a detailed footnote will be required. On the one hand the launch is from New Zealand, with a rocket body built in New Zealand. On the other hand, it is a U.S. headquartered company, with mostly U.S. venture capitalist funding and a U.S. government contract. The rocket engines and electronics are built in the U.S. It seems to me this makes it a partial rocket as South Korea case. Rmhermen (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is going to become a more frequent problem as commercial launches begin. I admit to bias (I'm a New Zealander), but would amend your comments to say that it was launched by a company founded in New Zealand and run by New Zealanders that is only based in the US for commercial reasons (the founder and CEO of the company, Peter Beck, is from Invercargill, Vice-President Shaun O'Donnell is an Aucklander); that the rockets were designed in New Zealand and built in the US to New Zealand specifications; and under contract to both the New Zealand and US governments. I'd say that's enough to qualify it as a New Zealand project. Venture capital for the project comes from both countries - leading investors include Sir Stephen Tindall and his K1W1 corporation. Admittedly the bulk of the funding does come from companies like Lockheed, but a commercial enterprise such as this will always likely be funded by businesses in many countries and companies - I'd guarantee that many companies described and known by the public as American, British, German, etc have a lot of their funding coming from other countries.  Grutness...wha? 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But we have said before that being a country's project is not enough. Which is why we excluded South Korea with its hybrid rocket and Italy with its American rocket. Our articles on the company, rocket and engine do not describe any New Zealand design facility or any New Zealand government contracts or New Zealand specifications (may be our shortcoming). But the company does describe itself as "Rocket Lab is an American company with headquarters in Los Angeles and a wholly-owned New Zealand subsidiary." Rmhermen (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but - as I said - it is a company which was founded in New Zealand, which moved to the United States in 2013 for commercial reasons. Its corporate HQ are in Los Angeles, but the rest of its operations are still in New Zealand. And the rocket is not American, it's a New Zealand rocket. The only components not made in NZ were designed here, at Rocket Lab's design facilities in Otahuhu, Auckland. So it doesn't really compare with the Italian and South Korean examples. The New Zealand government has put over NZ$25 million into contracts with the company. It has also received a similar amount in grants from the New Zealand government which are only available to New Zealand companies. If it qualifies for those grants then, according to the NZG it is a New Zealand company.Grutness...wha? 05:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

text: PS - this report fills in a few of the details not mentioned in our article. Grutness...wha? 05:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The New Zealand Space Agency was created basically to support Rocket Lab.--BugWarp (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

text: It seems that the consensus is split, some people think that New Zealand should be on there, some think it shouldn't. It's backwards and forwards, somebody removes it, then it's added back, then it's gone. Something needs to be agreed upon. I think the point that Rocket lab is a New Zealand founded company, run by New Zealanders, designed by New Zealanders qualifies this as a New Zealand company. I don't see the point in the backwards and forwards, something needs to be agreed upon. TravisD (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the technicalities ("wholly owned subsidiary", "who invested", etc), Rocket Labs is perceived as being a New Zealand company.  I find it quite jarring to see it listed as a US company in this article.  I would vote for listing it as a New Zealand company, or even as NZ/US.
67.70.5.245 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: There were 6,018 orbital launches in total, in 64 years of space exploration.
 Number of launches by year
Year	Launches	Success	Failure
2020	114     	104    	10
2019	102     	97     	5
2018	114     	111    	3
2017	91      	84     	7
2016	85      	83     	2
2015	87      	82     	5
2014	92      	89     	3
2013	81      	77     	4
2012	78      	73     	5
2011	84      	78     	6
2010	74      	70     	4
2009	78      	73     	5
2008	69      	66     	3
2007	68      	63     	5
2006	66      	62     	4
2005	56      	52     	4
2004	54      	51     	3
2003	63      	61     	2
2002	65      	61     	4
2001	59      	57     	2
2000	85      	81     	4
1999	78      	70     	8
1998	82      	77     	5
1997	89      	83     	6
1996	77      	71     	6
1995	80      	72     	8
1994	93      	89     	4
1993	83      	79     	4
1992	97      	94     	3
1991	91      	87     	4
1990	121     	115    	6
1989	102     	100    	2
1988	121     	115    	6
1987	114     	108    	6
1986	110     	102    	8
1985	125     	120    	5
1984	129     	127    	2
1983	129     	127    	2
1982	129     	119    	10
1981	126     	120    	6
1980	108     	103    	5
1979	110     	105    	5
1978	128     	123    	5
1977	130     	123    	7
1976	131     	126    	5
1975	132     	125    	7
1974	113     	104    	9
1973	116     	109    	7
1972	113     	105    	8
1971	133     	117    	16
1970	124     	113    	11
1969	125     	106    	19
1968	128     	119    	9
1967	139     	124    	15
1966	132     	117    	15
1965	124     	109    	15
1964	99      	86     	13
1963	69      	52     	17
1962	81      	67     	14
1961	50      	34     	16
1960	38      	19     	19
1959	23      	13     	10
1958	28      	8      	20
1957	3       	2      	1
 
* Total number of launches: 6,018 in 64 years = 94 launches per year
* Success: 5,559 (92.3%)
* Failure: 459
* Max launches in one year: 139 launches in 1967
* Max successful launches in one year: 127 launches in 1983 and 1984
* 95 consecutive successful launches between these two failed launches: 25 Jan 1983 - Kosmos-3M - and - 26 Sep 1983 - Soyuz-U
* 85 consecutive successful launches between these two failed launches: 26 Sep 1983 - Soyuz-U - and - 9 Jun 1984 - Atlas G Centaur - INTELSAT 509
* 67 consecutive successful launches between these two failed launches: 11 Jul 2019 - Vega - FalconEye 1 - and - 9 Feb 2020 - Simorgh - Zafar
* Max number of satellites on a single launch: 104 satellites on a PSLV rocket (India), on 15 February 2017 - mission PSLV-C37
Barecode (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics - by year 

message: Number of launches by country
Country    	Launches	Launchesper year	Success	Success (%)	Failure	Max launchesin one year	Consecutivesuccessfullaunches	Max satellitesin a launch
Russia/USSR	3,206   	50              	3,001  	93.6       	205    	108                    	116                          	36
USA        	1,775   	27.7            	1,616  	91         	159    	78                     	91                           	76 - Cygnus NG-11
China      	387     	7.5             	362    	93.5       	25     	39                     	48                           	13
Europe     	274     	5.1             	256    	93.4       	18     	12                     	95                           	53 - Vega flight VV16
Ukraine    	128     	4.4             	118    	92%        	10     	12                     	30                           	33
Japan      	124     	2.2             	112    	90%        	12     	7                      	36                           	9
India      	76      	1.8             	65     	85.5%      	11     	7                      	28                           	104 - PSLV-C37
France     	12      	1.1             	10     	83.3%      	2      	3                      	7                            	2
Iran       	12      	0.9             	5      	41.6%      	7      	3                      	3                            	1
Israel     	11      	0.3             	9      	81.8%      	2      	1                      	5                            	1
North Korea	5       	0.2             	2      	40%        	3      	1                      	2                            	1
South Korea	3       	0.6             	1      	50%        	1      	1                      	1                            	1
UK         	2       	1               	1      	50%        	1      	1                      	1                            	1
Brazil     	2       	0.6             	0      	0%         	2      	1                      	0                            	0
Australia  	1       	1               	1      	100%       	0      	1                      	1                            	1
TOTAL      	6,018   	94              	5,559  	92.3%      	459    	139                    	95                           	104
Barecode (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics - by country