Talk:Benefits of space exploration

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Hubble's law#Using Hubble space telescope data|determining the rate of expansion of the universe]] The anchor (#Using Hubble space telescope data) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

what we think about this?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bryantboatright, Samus180.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with space exploration?[edit]

Is this a topic large enough on its own or should it rather be called "Use and spinoff of spaceflight"? Besides is it benefits of space exploration or spaceflight, which is narrower? Nsae Comp (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt space exploration a benefit of space flight? Maybe best would be to call the article "Space application", in which "space exploration" is one of it and spaceflight and astronautics the means with spinoff effects. Nsae Comp (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent improvement of this article[edit]

I don't like to be negative about wiki articles because someone has taken the time and trouble to write them and obviously cares. But this article needs a lot of work to get to a reasonable standard. There are a lot of ungrammatical constructions, it's written like marketing copy, it's not balanced and neutral, it is very US-centric. It presents a lot of opinion as fact... The section on how space is good for different religious sects made me laugh out loud. Grasping at straws or what? It totally misses out that this was a military led thing (where are the military benefits?) so it reads like a NASA bid to get more tax dollars rather than a serious article. I'm just not that interested in space exploration to spend the time to do this, but I've flagged it up and hope people will come to the article's aid. I will fix some of the grammatical and copy editing issues as an act of good faith, as I would like to see it fixed rather than deleted (but that is a big ask starting at this current situation). However, it needs: better structure, more neutral citations, a neutral tone of voice, criticisms of the points made, a less US-centric viewpoint (eg what do people in Russia think?), copy editing throughout, more evidence and quantification, where there is opinion it should be expressed as a quote or made clear it is someone's PoV. It begins in a biased way because it assumes that the US's change in stance was universal and it doesn't explain what the stance was before the change so it is confusing. Mission to Planet Earth is a US thing - not something that all nations called it. There is so much to do to fix this article it's hard to know where to start.SandrinaHatman (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]