The problem is that the "current world record" being 19 was first set during a suborbital New Shepard flight above the Karman Line but then "backed up" by a totally orbital 19, years later.

There's a technical definition of space that was met yesterday, and the little additional contextual information the question provides doesn't steer away from that to "orbit only". I've bought some YES because I think this should resolve that way.

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/72199-most-people-in-space-at-once#:~:text=The%20most%20people%20in%20space,UTC%20on%2011%20Dec%202021.

Same question as https://manifold.markets/wilsonkime/will-we-set-a-new-record-for-number requires same answer. Either this resolves as YES, or the other one's resolution should be canceled and changed to NO.
Or as a last resort, the current market can be nullified (NA) if you disagree with the other one's answer.

Will we set a new record for number of people in space by mid 2025?

Resolved YES. Using the 100 km Karman line as the barrier. The current record is 19, set in 2021 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Human_spaceflight_firsts This would not count any flights by Virgin Galactic as they do not go up to 100km. There are currently 10 people in space as of April 12, 2024 (check the current number at https://whoisinspace.com/) and there is a scheduled Blue Origin space tourism flight, but that would only bring us to 16. To set a new record, we will probably need a confluence of an ISS or Tiangong crew change happening at the same time as a space tourism flight. If Wikipedia records a new record for number of people in space (100km), this resolves to YES. Update 2025-06-29 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has announced that the condition for a YES resolution has been met, with a new record of 20 people in space. The market will be resolved accordingly.

@MindcraftMax cc @mods wyt

@MindcraftMax my prop explicitly refers to the "fine print" of the underlying forecasting contest (now in its 10th year), which has its own judges for resolving the unfortunate cases where the tersely written props allow multiple reasonable interpretations. So it would ideally line up with the Kime prop resolution but I can't guarantee that the judges will have the same interpretation of what turns out to be the hard question re orbit. People who want to hedge have a chance to bail out before the prop is resolved in early July.

@MindcraftMax these are not the same question—they have different resolution criteria. i have not looked into what the right resolution would be in either case but there's no reason to expect these two to resolve the same

@AdamBraff I think the two reasonable approaches here are:
1. Define "space" in the reasonable way (Karman line) and resolve Yes accordingly.
2. Decide that "fine print" is controlling, and we don't have access to it. Wait, possibly a while, until the results of the competition are announced and we get their judges ruling on how this resolved. Leave the market open until then.

I think I prefer option 2; this market is intended to follow the underlying contest.

I see no support anywhere for randomly adding "orbital" to the criteria.

@EvanDaniel thanks, I'm doing approach #2, and have briefed the judges (including a link to the discourse here in the comments). Will report back when we have a ruling. Thanks to all for your thoughts

Can the people on the Yes side please state the case so that I can present it to the judges (in the underlying contest for which this prop is a mirror)? The old record of 19 was a big deal in the press, and I'm trying to understand why today's new number (20 if validated) would not get reported upon, or called out in Wikipedia or in the two source websites. Does it have something to do with varying definitions of space, or duration? Thanks.

@AdamBraff I have no skin in the game here, but when I did a search, I found this source which argues there was 20 people in space in Jan 2024.

https://www.space.com/human-spaceflight-record-20-people-in-space-2024

@BraydonDymm thanks, yeah, the way the underlying contest works is that people pitch ideas for props and then I clean them up and add dates and put them into the contest, and we leave it to the judges to resolve ambiguities. When this prop was pitched to me, it was with the "How Many People Are in Space" website as the source, and I believe that site shows a lower number because it requires orbit (experts please weigh in). If a broader definition counted suborbital altitude then that would be inconsistent with the phrasing of the prop, which said the "current record" as of Jan 2025 was 19. But let me see what the judges think.

@AdamBraff the “how many people are in space” website appears to have not updated its data since 2022. It’s showing a list of ten people who all splashed down that year.

@paulnewmanseyes thanks, looks like it’s not a great source. I think the Jan 2024 event (20) included a flight below the Kármán line whereas yesterday’s flight went above—but still below orbit. So I think this comes down to whether the judges believe orbit was a common sense part of this prop all along. (And we have to wait for July 1 to end anyhow.)

@AdamBraff The reason whoisinspace.com doesn't show the NS-33 astronauts is that it only shows people who are currently in space, and it doesn't update very quickly. They were only in space for several minutes, so it doesn't make sense to put them on the website.

As for why the press didn't report on it, the US counts space as 50 mi, and that record was only tied, not beaten. Obviously this market was using the Kármán line (I believe most of the world uses this definition). The US media presumably operate on US definitions.

If the question was orbit, it should have been worded as such. Changing the question from space to orbit afterward is moving the goalposts. There is a very clear distinction between the two and you can't resolve based on "a common sense part of this prop all along" that wasn't in the market wording.

See https://manifold.markets/wilsonkime/will-we-set-a-new-record-for-number

@Narnianknight thanks, are you seeing global press reports that use the K line definition and are celebrating yesterday’s achievement?

@AdamBraff NS-33 was in the US, so I wouldn't expect them to (although they might, I don't know), as being in space for two minutes isn't very news-worthy. Just because no one reported on it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

@Narnianknight I took this to mean "in space" as well.

@AdamBraff To me, the parenthetical 19 in the title question implies that space is defined here as something more impressive than the 2024 20-person event.

Also, it seems to me that records like this often get few press reports, even in space news. I noticed the 2024 event because i'm a nerd with a spreadsheet, but at the time it took me a while to find any articles about it.

@AdamBraff
> So I think this comes down to whether the judges believe orbit was a common sense part of this prop all along

Well in that case these judges would be pretty stupid. Space has been defined by altitude, and not orbit, for 7 decades.

Not seeing press reports, and two top sites not showing that number yet, will investigate: https://www.howmanypeopleareinspacerightnow.com/ and https://whoisinspace.com/

How Many People Are In Space Right Now?

How many people are in space right now?

same as this one? resolves yes https://manifold.markets/wilsonkime/will-we-set-a-new-record-for-number#