Talk:Monkeys and apes in space

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Primates Mid‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Smithsonian Institution Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 14, 2019 and June 14, 2023.

Died soon after landing

What are the reasons for the deaths shortly after landing? Injuries from a bad landing? Shock? --81.178.135.207 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordo

I've added what should be enough content to the page on Gordo to warrant its own page. I feel that adding this information to this summary page would do more harm then good. Unless anyone has an issue with it I'll remove the merge tag GreatGodOm 18:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Can you do a fact check on it? Check out earlier revisions and you'll notice the article creator claiming that the monkey actually faked the crash and defected to the Soviets. :) I hold the entire article suspect. ccwaters 19:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed three sources at the bottom of the page which should be accurate enough. All the facts, as they are now, are sourced GreatGodOm 16:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

primate

Primates are monkeys, chimpanzees are primates... I removed the Not Monkeys part where it says "they were chimpanzees" please read the Primate page for clarifation if needed. Maybe we should rename the page "Primates in space"? I think it would be more accurate... we could have monkeys in space redirect... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.158.133.194 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

*or even "lesser Primates in space"?

Well, technically, humans are primates, so that title probably belongs somewhere else. Lokicarbis (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in Space

Were any of the monkeys trained to do anything, for example, hit a button if a light comes on, or were they all just passive passengers?

More information is necessary on how the monkeys were trained, verbal commands? Pavlov training? electrical shock? radio transmissions on altering frequencies? sound response, etc.? am_curiousity2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.182.192 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased

The last line of the Soviet/Russian section is clearly biased and has no factual basis. It is in stark contrast to the Wikipedia article on Soviet Space Dogs which uses facts and references to show a higher survival rate in their programs. It hsould be removed.

76.168.248.13 06:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Philippine monkeys"

Patricia and Mike from the 1952 Aerobee flights were "Philippine macaques".[1] The only macaque of the Philippines is Macaca fascicularis.[2] The term "cynomolgus" applies to the same species.[3] I'll fix the article accordingly. --Cam (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina

This section is problematic. I found a reference that it seems to be based on: [4] but I cannot judge the reliability of this source. The section is filled with rocket types and monkey species unknown to Wikipedia and rocket launch dates unknown to Encyclopedia Astronautica. Perhaps the section was badly translated (the monkey type may be a cebus species). Anyone have any further sources for this? Did any of these flights actually reach 100km? Rmhermen (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the original and more reliable source: [5] but, while they are almost exact copies, the first claims the first claims that the first Argentine monkey flight reached a height of 60 km and a total flight time of 8 min while this second source says it only went to 30 km but took 21 minutes total. Rmhermen (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rmhermen: one of the actual scientists involved in the experiment counts as a credible source for this article. If it pleases you to know it was with Pentagon and NASA approval, since one of the former NASA chiefs under Eisenhower visited the Arg. program. That "perhaps" can be vertically inserted in your office chair perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have multiple published sources which give multiple altitudes. How are you determining which is the correct one? Why for instance does the newspaper in the background of the video you link twice say altitude of 70 km? Rmhermen (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this section seems to define the edge of space as somewhere between 62 and 82km, while elsewhere the article states that 100km is the edge of space. Is someone getting km confused with miles? GoldenRing (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the international 100 km definition but may refer to the earlier 50 mile definition in some places. Rmhermen (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment

I see a little bit of wiki graffiti at the end of the article - "monkeys have long tails" - but can't see it in the source code to remove it, not being a wiki expert this is the edge of my understanding so can't fix it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.79.25 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Albert" V2 flights -- was death on impact planned or an accident?

The United States section mentions that of the four "Albert" V2 flights, two monkeys died during the flight and the other two died on impact. The suffocation and explosion were presumably accidents, but what about the impacts? Did parachutes malfunction, or where they not even installed? -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Both parachute failures. Rmhermen (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Able inspired a character in the film Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian."

There is no reference for this and it seems like trivia. Should it be removed? 122.60.138.173 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Removed it after no one objected for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.187.171.112 (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian telemetry video of flight

Video by sonofiran looks like a iranian military interest channel, shows 4 camera view of launch from a window, looking back at base of rocket, at monkey (who doesn't even blink at 10G launch), and at base of "capsule" which shows jettison of booster and deployment of parachutes. No heat shield involved evidently. Redhanker (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

"monkeys in space"... someone should rename it to something more serious Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 19:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Especially as it also covers apes (as Epicgeius rightly has noted)... JoergenB (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the article in reality is about "any kind of simian, except humans, having been sent beyond the close-to-earth limit conventionally defined at the boundary of 'space'"" (although it is possible to argue that the Earth with everything in it and on it is immersed in space itself). It would not be an improvement to try to make the title quite as exact and serious as that, however.

Actually, the present title uses the term monkey in a colloquial and broader sense than the most usual one, also including apes (except humans). For this sense, see the discussion in Monkey#Historical and modern terminology. There has been a few edits lately which try to adapt the article more to its present title - with the narrower 'proper' sense of monkey. I don't think that is the best thing to do, though.

Neither in the 'proper', nor in the broader colloquial sense, monkeys form a phylogenetic taxon - in other words, monkey is not very useful for a strict biological classification of organisms sent to the sky. There is also no real sense in creating a separate article for "apes in space". Biologically, that should include humans is space; otherwise, we again have problems with the modern biological view of proper taxonomy.

However, the finer biological classification is of no importance for the subject of this article. Humans go to space voluntarily - often eagerly, I think, if they get the chance. Other simians are sent to space, as experiments. In other words, they are used as laboratory animals, with several purposes of which most relate to the best ways to send humans into space. These non-human simians are used, precisely since they are relatively similar to humans in many biological aspects. This is the important distinction here, not whether these non-human simians happen to be named "apes" or "monkeys" in the most common English usage. (Moreover, this distinction is absent or different in some other languages.)

Thus, the article should continue to concern all kinds of non-human simians sent to space. I'm going to restore images removed because they depicted'non-monkeys', namely, chimps. We might change the title somewhat, and the text a little further than user:Epicgenius and user:Karin Anker already have done, to make this clear; but we should not try to remove or downgrade the chimpanzee examples.

A title suggestion: Could Monkeys and apes used in space exploration be a reasonable compromise between preciseness and usefulness? JoergenB (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the original title and scope. Its title mirrors animals in space, and formerly dogs in space. Rmhermen (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "the original scope"? Does it encompass the chimpanzee? JoergenB (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant all non-human primates in one article. When I originally expanded the stub I included Ham and Enos with the notation that they were not actual monkeys - but I also left them in the See also section. So maybe I was of two minds about it. Rmhermen (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Joergen entirely. Karin Anker (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to have one article on [Labratory animals in space]]. Any notable programs or experiments, or individual animals, could have their own articles in addition. I don't really see the reasoning of lumping Soviet, American, and other nations' monkeys and chimps together and excluding other species of animal. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an animals in space article. Rmhermen (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a matter of taste - but personnally I am more interested to have an overview of a certain kind of animal than of the animals used by a certain country. However, nothing stops us from having both.

As I wrote above, the distinction between "monkeys" and "apes" is not biologically motivated; if really a distinction should be made by biological lines, it should be between catarrhines on the one hand, and New World monkeys on the other. I still think that this article has a more natural scope, if we include "all non-human simians" (or "all non human primates" - but have people been sending e. g. lemurs into space?). If I understand you right, Rmhermen, this is also fairly well compatible with your original intentions. The easies way to clarify this scope would be to extend the title to "monkeys and apes", I think. JoergenB (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No other opinions seem forthcoming. In my opinion, the discussion showed that while there is some opposition to a more precise name ("space exploration") and some musings over the division by country rather than taxon, there is no larger opposition to adding "and apes" to this article (as it stands). I'll do this move; if you disagree, feel free to revert and continue the discussion here. JoergenB (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference removed

I have removed this reference ( <rf>1959 – Space Monkeys Able and Miss Baker become the first monkeys to safely return to Earth</rf> ) from the article because it's a circular reference. The article at The Centre Cannot Hold was written using no other sources than this Wikipedia page. I know this, because I wrote it. Wherever those figures were originally sourced from, it wasn't my site - they were already on this page when I wrote that article. Lokicarbis (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should humans be included?

Most of the apes that went to space are humans, otherwise the title should be changed to "Non-human simians in space". Editor abcdef (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editor abcdef, the title was moved but has now been moved back. To some editors the addition of 'non-human' defines the page, otherwise 'apes' means any ape, including human. Just saying 'apes' doesn't make sense. Rmhermen (and nice work on the page by the way), maybe this should go to an RM, unless you want to discuss it enough first to maybe change it back. Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are countries not in alphabetical order?

I reacted on why the United States is listed first, then countries in, I assume, no order. To me this seems like a deliberate bias towards the United Stated being the foremost country.

The countries appear to be listed in chronological order (except for Argentina, which probably shouldn't even be included in this article because they never made it to space). This order makes perfect sense to me. Deli nk (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there are no mentions of this I don't agree it makes sense. Instead of the present (or alphabetical order which I previously suggested), an order by decade should be used, like in the "mother article": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monkeys and apes in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Monkeys and apes in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Types of monkeys

realted to the Philippine Monkeys section. When refering to Macaca fascicularis two names are used.
"while Albert III was a Crab-eating macaque."
"Patricia and Mike, two cynomolgus monkeys"
unless there is a good reason to use the different one name should be selected and used.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.54.131 (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many chimps went to space?

As of right now, this page asserts (with no citation) that Enos was the third Great Ape to go to space. But who is supposed to have been second? In this article about monkeys and apes in space, there is only ever reference made to one other non-human Great Ape (Ham). I have not been able to find any source mentioning a non-human Great Ape, chimp or otherwise, traveling to space, by name or otherwise. I even found one source affirming that there were two chimps ever. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/a-brief-history-of-chimps-in-space# 65.30.93.194 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]