Talk:NASA/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

popular culture section

How about a section that briefly mentions some films, books, etc. that focus on NASA and NASA missions, like the movie Apollo 13, or the book Deception Point... --steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.71.45 (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken link

the last link in the "External links" section is broken. Ely1 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC) http://www.scribd.com/doc/36064289/NASA-Logo-Alignment-Corresponds-to-May-21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.5.242 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The logo link works, but not sure what you were eluding to there. The HHR doc could not be determine, so tried replace with something related. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a question...

Is this amount of images needed? I know images are a good thing, and trust me I love them. But, it seems as though there is an image in almost every section. Is such an amount really necessary? Just curious. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 03:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Not really. I removed 2 or 3 from the "NASA programs" section to reduce image crowding. -fnlayson (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Another question: why are NASA space images so colorized? Are the imagers capable of this, is this this just Photoshop Engineering, or or somewhere in-between?--96.244.248.77 (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess to appeal the public. Most science images are grayscale (intensity), but there are many software packages which allow to assign colors to some parameter, say chemical element in a chemical map, and then correctly use intensity of that color. Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 134.253.26.6, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Citation [55] was cut and paste from another article, but failed to take the actual citation, which is <ref name=presskit>{{cite web|title=COTS Demo Flight 1 Press Kit|url=http://www.spacex.com/downloads/cots1-20101206.pdf|publisher=SpaceX}}</ref>. So, please replace <ref name=presskit /> with this complete citation. You can find it by following the red error messages in the reference section. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ISS assembly

The sentence "The International Space Station relied on the Shuttle fleet for all major construction shipments." has been removed. It contradicts Neutrality and is simply not accurate. The only link provided, to the ISS mainpage, contradicts the sentence. I've copied rather hurriedly, please feel free to polish it up, the following sentence from the ISS mainpage to address the error, and improve neutrality.

Russian modules of the International Space Station launch and dock robotically, with the exception of Rassvet. All other modules were delivered by space shuttle, and required installation by ISS and shuttle crewmembers using the SSRMS and EVAs. Penyulap (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That sentence could have been changed from "all major construction" to "most major construction" or something along those lines. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, but you have to find out just how many modules, and then weigh up wether each one is 'major' or 'minor'. Solar panels are major, but so too is orbital control and life support, the space station is 'divided' politically, and also physically at the unity module. If the Russian and US orbital segments were separated, the ROS forms a complete self-sufficient space station. The USOS becomes unlivable and tumbles out or orbit. So the word major needs some justification. I'm all for it, however, to uphold neutrality, it has to be somehow justified, for example by some tally or some such.Penyulap (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Many Modules ! Brilliant ! Precise ! Do you know, looking at the changes log, I think the guardians of this page are overworked and under-appreciated. I do hope I can be of assistance wherever possible. Keep up the great work ! Don't give up !Penyulap (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Skylab

The sentence "Skylab was the first space station the United States launched into orbit." in particular the word first appears to imply that the united states has had or has, more than one space station. The ISS is an international effort, so use of the word 'first' without qualification is inappropriate.
A slight alteration has been made "Skylab is the only space station the United States launched into orbit without collaboration." it's as accurate as I can think of, without being too long. It acknowledges the ISS be a collaboration. If it said 'Skylab is the only space station the US has launched' which is true, it wouldn't acknowledge the US contribution to the International station.Penyulap (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fnlayson, how are you ? Thank you for your help. The sentence "Skylab was the first space station launched into orbit solely by the United States." is great, the part that says "solely by the United States." is easier to understand and clear. However, I would humbly suggest, it makes the problem worse. It now implies that the United States not only has launched other space stations, but that it has done so solely by itself. I do hope we can work together to make the article as accurate as possible. Penyulap (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Space shuttle program

"The strength of their cooperation on this project was even more evident when NASA began relying on Russian launch vehicles to service the ISS during the two-year grounding of the shuttle fleet following the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster." is an excellent example of weasel words it needs removal, rephrasing, or some citation. Penyulap (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Mission

There have been recent attacks on the "social mission" and I see to recall this being brought up several years ago.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/2010/07/11/nasa-remarks-ridiculous.html[dead link]

Where does this go? Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The cold war is long over with, yet the taxpayer spends billions to keep a massive rocketry program going that produces little (if anything) of useful commercial or scientific value. The only thing I can point to that has affected my life is "Tang (drink)". Even unmanned missions produce missions to allow ham radio enthusiasts some toys to play with. Isn't it time to take a long hard look at the value of keeping such a program going? Where is the justification to maintain the status quo? Its "white collar welfare" at its finest.--71.245.164.83 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Columbus didn't know what he was going to find either. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A key point of interest about NASA is if it is worth money. I find it very strange that there is no discussion or links in this section on this subject. We could provide a link to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

to begin with. Every economic study of NASA has found that it has produced wealth for the USA. There are any number of claims that the Apollo program paid for itself 14 times over, 17 times over, etc. However, it is hard to find the original material. I would like to have a page that can act as a clearing house on this subject. See:

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/economics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.28.47 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mcalpint, 22 May 2011

"unmanned" is mispelled.

Mcalpint (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

NASA SPACE Technology [[2]]

Year 2010 to 2020

International Space Station 17,074 Billion Dollar

Year 2010

275,2 Million Dollar

Year 2011

512,0 Million Dollar

Year 2012

1,024 Million Dollar

Year 2013

1,024 Million Dollar

Year 2014

1,024 Million Dollar

Year 2015

1,024 Million Dollar

Year 2016

1,024 Million Dollar
62.200.86.169 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
62.200.86.169 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Space Taxi "Dream Chaser"

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: NASA announced that space taxi "Dream Chaser" will be tested next year. Taxis in whose development has been invested 1,6 billion dollars has seven seats, and is intended to transport astronauts to the International Space Station. Building the space station has cost 100 billion dollars in the project involved 16 countries. The station is at 350 kilometers above Earth`s surface, and was completed this year after more than a decade of construction. It is expected that a space taxi will soon carry also tourists. 78.2.100.249 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

NASA news

I think the hatnote link to Unamnned NASA missions was helpful because I can see that the page views for that article went up after it was made. Soerfm (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Services

Previously the article made no mention of them, even though they are the corner stone of NASA's ISS utilization plan. They have been added to the article.--Craigboy (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Doomsday

ABOUT THE DOOMS DAY I AM EAGER TO KNOW WHAT WIIL HAPPEND — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.76.224 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the NASA article. It is not for answering questions of the kind you have posed. And please don't post in all capital letters. It is considered shouting on the Internet. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article lock

So why exactly is this article locked? It seems to me that it's a substandard article and input from the Wikipedia community could vastly improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.35.253 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism.--Craigboy (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Obama shut NASA down? [No]

I read in the news that NASA was to be defunct, and that there would be no more funding for NASA. Why is there nothing in this article about that? Jørgen88 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"The end of the space shuttle program does not mean the end of NASA, or even of NASA sending humans into space. NASA has a robust program of exploration, technology development and scientific research that will last for years to come." -- NASA, see here. Dipankan says.. ("Edit count do not matter") 06:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. So the basically the Space Launch System will replace the Constellation program and the Space Shuttle program? Jørgen88 (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The Space Shuttle was already retired last July. I believe these articles cover this stuff already. If they are not clear, indicate where, so that can be fixed. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

NASA - one of the biggest employee in USA?

Hmm it is interesting, maybe not only for me - what is actual position of NASA on USA employers list. Isn't it one of the biggest and in first 10 or 100? Most companies today have about x thousands, and they have xx thousands...(sorry and please correct my English, I am talking also to improve it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not say "one of the biggest employers in US" in the article anywhere I can find. NASA is a US government agency, not a company/corporation. Its employees are part of a large pool of government workers (United States civil service). With over 18,000 employees, NASA is larger than many US companies however. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Nasa US FL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.45.251.40 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Looking at the MOS:TM, capitalizations are only used if the word is spoken as individual letters. This is clearly not the case for NASA. According to these rules, shouldn't this article be retitled Nasa? There are a few other examples as well such as NATO, ABBA and INXS, but surely these must be all wrong too, or am I missing something obvious?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are. NASA is not a trademark; it is an acronym abbreviating the name of a governmental agency (the topic of the article is the agency, not its logo.) Therefore, MOS:TM does not apply at all. I don't have all the MOS guidelines memorized, but I would imagine if there is one covering this type of acronym, it would support this usage. There are also two guiding principles of the Wikipedia: 1) real-world usage should be reflected when possible (it's universally rendered NASA and not "Nasa"); and 2) once a usage is established in an article (and many wikilinks to it), it's best not to change it even if you think it breaks a rule. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As JustinTime55 says MOS:TM is not applicable, and actually the statement re: how the word is spoken is problematic and contrary to common usage. As per WP:MOSCAPS Acronyms and initialisms what matters is general usage. Actually contrary to above NASA has been rendered Nasa in a small number of cases, for example by the BBC in recent decades, however from my experience this is rare and certainly so in the more applicable American media. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
^Agreed, BBC is the only media that I've seen use Nasa. I have not seen any American media use that. The use of Nasa is very rare overall. Same thing with NATO, btw. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks. Yes it seems I was missing the obvious. It's not a trademark.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Rephrase a sentence

The following comes from the article: "The most amount of people on the ISS at one time has been thirteen, this occurred three times during the late Shuttle ISS assembly missions." (followed by the reference 75) The same meaning would better be expressed as follows: The highest number of people occupying the ISS was thirteen. This occurred three times during the late Shuttle ISS assembly missions. Or even better to use the phrase "working in" instead of occupying, since the next sentence refers to "assembly missions". 87.228.212.143 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I adjusted the wording as suggested above. "Occupying" seems good as astronauts could be working outside on space walks at times. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for —49.202.152.91 (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. The coordinates displayed at the top of the article are the correct ones for the NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. Deor (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, NASA HQ is the most sensible place for NASA's coordinates. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Per aspera ad astra

Can anyone tell me if this really is a motto of NASA? The article named 'Per aspera ad astra' cites it as the Administration's motto, and uses a reference of an almost-bare link to nasa.gov. Upon searching on Google, I couldn't find anything that didn't link back to or cite the motto's wiki article, except for the fact that a part of the Sagan Series regarding NASA was titled 'Per Aspera Ad Astra'. Would a NASA employee know whether this is the/an official motto? Thanks. --ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 17:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it isn't! I've removed the note from that article. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
...looking at the talkpage, it seems to be a misinterpretation based on this plaque. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, just wanted to make sure it wasn't something that somehow missed being on nasa's wiki page and their own website. Thanks!--ɱ (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC) 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 May 2013

change date of creation to october 4th 71.123.223.221 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: NASA was established on July 29, 1958, and began operations on October 1, 1958. Both of these dates are in the article and sourced. If you're referring to a different date within the article, please clarify your request and provide a reliable source. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Percent of federal budget

Budget text gives the budget of NASA being approximately 3.3% of the Federal budget, however the graph in this section shows it being around 4.5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.13.122 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

3.3% was in 1966. The current budget is around 0.48%, which is exactly what both the text and graph show. — Reatlas (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Huh??? Reatlas, please take another look at the graph. It clearly puts the 1966 peak at about 4.4x%, not 3.3%. I think we need to resolve this. We seem to have a source discrepency between the Smithsonian and lpi.usra.edu (Dr. David A. Kring). JustinTime55 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise the IP was referring to a historical peak rather than the current values. Definitely a source conflict, the two graphs hit different peaks. — Reatlas (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Page updated with values and source from Budget of NASA. — Reatlas (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Date of ISS formation/launch

In the article, in the section International Space Station (1993–present), in the brackets, the launching date of the ISS is written to be 1993, but the correct one is 1998.

Source

46.217.55.80 (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)F.

No error. The text in the section says the ISS program was formed in 1993. The first ISS hardware was launched into orbit in 1998. It can take years to design, analyze, and test the hardware before being ready to be launched. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NASA Web site no longer operating

The NASA web site seems to be no longer operating. When clicked on the link gives:

Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available. We sincerely regret this inconvenience.

For information about available government services, visit USA.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar2013 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

North American Space Agency

I think there should be a mention that NASA is often incorrectly referred to as the North American Space Agency.

Sources:

This is the first time I've seen it called such.--Craigboy (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't include errors made by people, who could easily find the correct information. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 13:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes we do if it's a common enough occurrence and especially if the error is used in reliable sources - which I believe The Huffington Post is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I was a little surprised that such a redirect didn't already exist. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad Source links

Source link number 5 leading to the Eisenhower memorial page is a bad link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.185.7 (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

checkY Done. Reference link corrected - Ninney (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ABMA ?

Hey, LTWR, IC (long time wikipedia reader, infrequent contributor)

The NASA page says Von Braun worked for ABMA, but for my best efforts I could not ascertain what ABMA was, or its relevancy. Could use a link. Sorry if using improper channels.

-Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compdude47 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Army Ballistic Missile Agency. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Scans of NASA-issued photo IDs

Someone scanned a pair of NASA photo IDs and uploaded them to illustrate James H. Trainor. Those images are now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 27#File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 1.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 27#File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 2.jpg--GrapedApe (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator

I just started it and am making a bit of a pig's ear out of it. Could someone please have a look-see. Also, someone added some strange "see alsos" that I'm not sure about. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Uninformative Budget Graph

Look at the graph in the "Budget" section. It doesn't tell very much, only what percentage of government spending goes toward NASA every year. Is this designed to mislead people? I don't know. Either way, a much better graph would be the cost of NASA per year in, say, 2007 dollars, or, alternately, the cost of NASA as a percentage of the GDP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.2 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

To-do list?

Can anyone clarify what is wrong with the images that they would need cleanup for? Possibly @Soerfm:? The request for expansion about "Space Technology" is also unclear. Have these items been addressed already? 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Power plant" vs. "powerplant"

The Meriam-Webster dictionary uses "power plant" to designate both definitions: "an electric utility generating station" (as used here), and "an engine and related parts supplying the motive power of a self-propelled object (as a rocket[, airplane,] or automobile)". "Powerplant" is an acceptable spelling of the second definition. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the Powerplant redirect to Propulsion. It turns out most links correctly use the term in this sense, and only a very few had to be changed to Power plant. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the "powerplant" used as one word so much for aircraft engines. Thanks for clarifying. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration – I think is a little more consistent to name the company pages not for their initials, but for their name. ToonLucas22 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See the previous discussions on this in the archives, e.g. Talk:NASA/Archive 1. The current consensus is to use the acronym. There needs to be a new discussion and a clear consensus to rename before this article can be renamed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Quite honestly I can't remember seeing the spelled out name in news sources. -- Calidum 00:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NASA is a US government agency, not a company. NASA is far more common and sometimes even treated as a word (Nasa vs. NASA) in some media articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per some things not getting off the launch pad. GregKaye 11:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME It has been around for so long (56 years) that the acronym is ubiquitous (one might have seen it spelled out in 1958 news sources.) The full name already exists as a redirect. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title should reflect how the name is given on first reference, for example in a news story.[3] Whether the names of private companies are spelled out or abbreviated is really neither here nor there. The initializer (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The United States government calls the agency NASA not National Aeronautics and Space Administration, even though its the full name. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose rarely do you ever see or hear this spelled all the way out. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose This is a case where the acrymnim is far better known.--67.68.31.204 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unprotection

Unprotect this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.34.191 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's too high profile to be unprotected.--Craigboy (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of the format for the NASA article

The new format that was recently introduced has a few issues.

  • It doesn't make sense to include only human spaceflight programs under the "History" section.
  • Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo are both subprograms of the ISS and should be listed under that. The new format doesn't really allow that since the programs are grouped by century.
  • Manned spaceflight has two separate sections which seems unnecessary.
  • NASA has non-spaceflight projects, for example aeronautic research. The new format doesn't seem to acknowledge that.

I understand it can be frustrating to have someone revert your edits, but I do appreciate that you're putting time in to clean up the NASA article. If you want we can discuss what a better format would look like and eventually implement it into the article.--Craigboy (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Its really no problem Craig, thanks for taking the time to explain your views here. Fotaun (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly off-topic: NACA aviation accomplishments

The aviation accomplishments of NACA before NASA's creation in 1958 probably shouldn't be loading up this article, since the separate article exists. This would include everything except possibly SR-71 (no date is given) and the VTOL. Also, citations for this material are needed. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note, this is a WP:Good article. You may have downgraded its status by adding this raw content. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree. Moreover, I suggest, aside passing mention of the SR-71 & X-15, any detail of their development & operations belongs on the subject page(s), neither here nor at NACA, contrary to the last rv there. I don't see a good argument for including such (more or less) trivia there, nor here. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
If you believed that this information belonged on the NACA page, you probably should not have personally removed the information from that page shortly ago. I very much doubt the honestly of your concern when you have done exactly the opposite of what you are pushing for, and claimed it was "off topic" and use punctuation as an excuse to remove the topics from the NACA page. If this is what you believe, please make sure your edits are in fact in line with those beliefs, and not the exact opposite of what you are stating.

Short entries meant to link to other pages are considered perfectly acceptable, and wikipedia would cease to exist if entries of this type were not allowed. Short entries about involvement in major accomplishments are perfectly normal. In fact, other accomplishments have far larger entries in this page despite having the existence of their own pages. Having a separate page does not mean that no mention can be made on other pages.

There was previously absolutely no mention of ANY NASA/NACA accomplishments in flight before this entry. Its only appropriate to include information on the agency's second largest mission. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to focus on what NASA did, since NACA is covered in another article. The text should be more of a summary like the other text in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dbivans: I'm seconding Fnlayson's comment; the focus here is NASA, and 10 Kb of material is not a summary. What you have added concerns NACA, and should be there if it isn't already. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, how would completely ignoring the entire aviation department of NASA be considered keeping it focused on NASA, by ignoring its second largest division? The information given is not any longer than any other sections, and it contains several different topics for the space. Not only is removing good faith edits against wikipedia guidelines, but the proper use of tags or any proper usage of editing was not done in ANY manner. The guidelines were completely ignored. Please make an attempt to follow the guidelines.
The idea that NACA should not be included in NASA history is absurd, as this would mean we would have to remove the Army Airforce sections of the US airforce page, as well as seperate the Secret Service page into seperate pages because of its original usage to fight counterfeiting. Not only is removing the ENTIRE history of NASA involvement with aviation against wikipedia guidelines, its makes no sense.
Ignoring the aviation department of NASA completely because of its ties to a NASA predecessor defies basic logic.DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • We're not saying ignore aviation (the first A in NASA), just write a summary version like the other content in the article now as stated above. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:NASA/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has 120 citations and per GA review, but not really that great. Article has some US-biased like FAA and needs more depth and coverage. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 08:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 21:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

New Horizons

Some rather out of date information:

A problem with deep space travel is communication. For instance, it takes about 3 hours at present for a radio signal to reach the New Horizons spacecraft at a point more than halfway to Pluto.

and

The New Horizons mission to Pluto was launched in 2006 and is currently en route for a Pluto flyby in 2015.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the current status of New Horizons. Also, I would suggest cutting the bit about the communications delay entirely, since it's a random statement about space travel in general, not anything specific to NASA.78.146.209.200 (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I see the second statement has now been corrected, but not the first (which I still think should just be deleted outright). I wonder if anyone is reading this talk page... 78.146.210.101 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Image cleanup

So I just removed several images that weren't relevant or sometimes even totally unrelated to the section they were added on. As an example, the Kepler (spacecraft) isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, yet there was an image of it. The article just had way too many images. Read my edit summaries for the reason I removed an individual image, and if you want a certain image to return, just let me know. Thanks Huritisho 00:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

NASA's relation with popular culture

Could there be a new section added about NASA's relation with popular culture? Their exposure in media as well as popularity have been greatly effected by Hollywood's film releases, often increasing their funding or number of eager volunteers that want to take part in the space exploration. With the Martian(2015) film and NASA's involvement with it for the purpose of increasing their publicity, I feel that this would be an important section to add, especially in the current age where pop culture and media exposure can easily dictate many positive or negative changes to a company or agency.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:5b08:f000:c862:c195:b2f4:1b4b (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While what you say may be true, what you are talking about sounds more like what would be an interesting graduate thesis to write, which would take a lot of opinion and interpretation of published information. Unfortunately, we call that original research, which we see as conflicting with how an encyclopedia must be written. We can only put information that is verifiable because it has been published elsewhere. I think that might be hard to do in this case, but you are welcome to try. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to edit

Request to edit NASA has had many successful mission, but I believe that the Apollo 11 mission was one of the most monumental moments for NASA because it was the first time we had ever put a human on another planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellen.church (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what your request is. TJRC (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

NASA is a government space agency. A special infobox template was created for space agencies, and is used for all the others (e.g. ESA, which is an intergovernmental organization.) It should be used here for consistency. No important information is lost by the change; the only things deleted are the deputy administrator, and the NASA flag (which duplicates the NASA seal). There is no compelling reason to use the government agency template. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that the government box was used for years until you changed it this month without prior discussion, perhaps it's best if you get a consensus here first to use the space agency box. - BilCat (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is NASA an "independent agency of the federal government"?

@Human.: placed the following in the introductory sentence:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the independent agency of the United States Federal Government responsible for ...

Wikipedia cannot be cited as a verification of itself. This needs to be verified by a reliable source published outside of Wikipedia. And if you check the Independent agencies page (and its talk page), you'll see that there was no verification of NASA's inclusion on that list, and it has been removed.

The word "independent" does not appear in the act of Congress which created NASA, and I have never ever heard it referred to as an "independent agency". JustinTime55 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What problem you have with that NASA is independent agency of US Government? Then say me, which federal executive department is parent of NASA? Answer is nothing, guess why. Also look here and here, its on two Wikipedia pages. But OK, you will argument with WP:CIRCULAR. So look on USA.gov website, for example FBI or DEA there have their parent agency (one of US federal executive department), because they are both agencies of US Department of Justice. NASA and CIA there don't have any parent agency, becuase they are both independent agencies of US Government. I last edited it on NASA page. If you still have problem with it, you can revert it back, I dont care about it anymore. --Human. (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) (This post moved here from my Talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC))
Actually, NASA was not created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 2010 (124 Stat. 3328); it was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 426). I believe the 2010 act was intended to codify the 1958 act with all subsequent amendments. That being said, neither statute expressly calls the Administration an independent agency.
However, NASA does refer to itself an "independent agency" in some places, e.g., "NASA is an independent agency whose Earth science research is used to characterize, understand and predict climate."; and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent agency established by Congress on October 1, 1958, by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958" (page 81). NARA also uses the term, even if the statute does not: "Established: As an independent agency by the National Aeronautics and Space Act (72 Stat. 426), July 29, 1958.".
As far as I can tell, the phrase "independent agency" does not actually have any fixed legal meaning subject to any common understanding. It's often used to mean an agency not housed within a particular executive department; sometimes used to mean an agency not subject to the President's ability to remove. I'm not sure it's really worth inclusion here, since the label doesn't really impart any useful information. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NASA. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Plutonium section

Worth having mention of RTG development, but does really deserve a top-level heading?

--2001:4898:80E8:3:0:0:0:274 (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it absolutely does not. I moved it up into Scientific research, where it seems to go best. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Dead link

There appears to be a dead link in the external sources section. The dead link is "Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth." It'd be great if someone with permission could delete it or find the right path. Thanks! Hugo Day (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done - I also updated several links to https and marked one as dead. If anyone has a replacement for NASA records available for research at the National Archives at Atlanta, that one also needs to be fixed. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Caption on Space Shuttle program (1972–2011)

For section Space Shuttle program (1972–2011), there is a picture captioned "A women..." Should be corrected to "A woman..." Jasonman101 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed to "Mae Jemison..." -- AxG / ✉ / 10 years of editing 17:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Corruption scandal

The Center of Theological Inquiry is currently involved in a curruption scandal involving a grant from NASA. [4]

Relevant here? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on NASA. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on NASA. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on NASA. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

CRS listed among manned programs

Why is the subsection Commercial Resupply Services (2006–present) listed in the section Manned programs? It is the only program listed there not involving crew flight, contrary to its section title. Keavon (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is that it supports the ISS, which is a manned program; it wouldn't really fit to just stick this with the "unmanned programs" section as it is currently written, all containing what are actually robotic space probes meant to explore space without crew. You've uncovered a problem with the way the article is structured. Unmanned spacecraft consisted historically of space probes, but in the age of the space station now includes unmanned support vehicles, and also space tugs (transfer vehicles). JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Revived Moon Base plans

Maybe the recent reveal of a joint US/Russia Effort to build a space station orbiting the moon should go somewhere?

or is it too soon?

--163.238.9.44 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

NASA/Roscosmos Effort or private sector? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.126.14 (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—37.239.12.15 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't specified what is erroneous, and the coordinates in the article appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, please give a clear explanation of what it is and, if possible, what the correct coordinates should be. Deor (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - Grammar in the Directives section

Mistakes in the Directives section:

  • Missing full stops at the ends of the first three paragraphs
  • Missing comma after "For example" in the first paragraph (sentence "For example there was a major push to ...")
  • Missing comma after "After Apollo" in the second paragraph (sentence "After Apollo there is typically some ...")
  • Plural number in the first sentence of the third paragraph (sentence "... decades, but there is some differences over what ...")
  • Plural number in the second sentence of the third paragraph (sentence "One of the options that was considered. was an Asteroid Redirect Mission")
  • Wrong article before "ebb" in the third paragraph
  • Remove double and triple spaces around "Asteroid Redirect Mission" in the third paragraph

Repaired text:

Some major NASA directives were to land people on the moon, and another one was build the space shuttle, and to build a large space station. Typically major directives mark some combination of science advisory, political, funding, and public interest that synergize into various waves of effort often heavily swayed by technical, funding, and world wide events. For example, there was a major push to build Space Station Freedom in the 1980s, but when the Cold War ended Russian and the USA and international partners came together to build the International Space Station.

In the 2010s the major shift was the retirement of the Space Shuttle and development of a new manned heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System. Missions for the new system have varied but are overall similar, and involved a human push outward from Earth using the system. After Apollo, there is typically some combination of using space stations, the Moon, and other targets as part of an overall exploration of the solar system. An example of this was the Space Exploration Initiative of the 1980s.

Roadmaps have similarities in that there is usually a goal of Mars in the coming decades, but there are some differences over what are the best steps to take and what specific technologies to focus on.[1] One of the options that were considered was an Asteroid Redirect Mission.[1] ARM had largely been defunded in 2017, but key technologies developed for ARM would be utilized for future exploration, especially work on a solar electric propulsion system.[2][1] The long lead times for projects usually means its up to later officials to execute on a directive, sometimes decades later. This means there is often an ebb and flow of directions and shifts. For example, a Shuttle replacement has numerous projects each making some headway before being called off for various reasons including the National Aerospace Plane, VentureStar, Orbital Space Plane, Ares I, etc.. The asteroid mission was not a major directive in the 2010s, rather there was generic support for a large heavy launch vehicle and a long term goal of getting humans to Mars. The space shuttle was retired and much of the existing roadmap was shelved including the then planned Lunar return and Ares I human launch vehicle. Pixievi (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c [1]
  2. ^ Jeff Foust (June 14, 2017). "NASA closing out Asteroid Redirect Mission". Space News. Retrieved September 9, 2017.

Why nationalized, why not multinational?

Why nationalized, why not multinational?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.174.114.56 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Because it's an agency of the United States government, hence "National". - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

not the best place to work 190.197.72.211 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done. WP:What Wikipedia is not JustinTime55 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Edit

I wish to inquire if I can request the following article to be included in the NASA page:

Latest NASA programs

The NASA launched a planet-searching mission to discover alien worlds. It launched the TESS or Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite in April 18, 2018 on top of SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-spearheaded NASA mission conducted an all-sky exploration survey for passing or transiting (extro) planets. These planets move in front of stars as observed from telescopes. https://tess.mit.edu/ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/when-planets-transit The space telescope analyzes many bright stars in the sun's neighborhood. It looks for minuscule dips in brightness resulting from the passage (or "transit") of revolving planets as small as the planet Earth across the stars. https://www.space.com/41882-nasa-tess-first-exoplanet-evaporating-super-earth.html Scientists utilized the TESS data in discovering another planet around the Pi Mensae star or HD 39091 located roughly about 59 light years from the earth in the Mensa constellation. http://www.solstation.com/stars2/pimensae.htm At the beginning of 2018, NASA maintained two space rovers on the planet Mars. However, the Opportunity ceased communicating with earth because of the huge dust storm that engulfed the planet. This cyclone prevented sunlight from reaching the solar panels. Since June (2018), NASA has not heard from the craft even if the storm has stopped. The Curiosity Rover also experienced a technical issue prompting space engineers to shut down all scientific instruments temporarily while performing troubleshooting functions. NASA tried to rescue Opportunity in August but shelved its plans. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/curiosity-opportunity-nasa-rover-problems/570769/ https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/status_opportunityAll.html https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/mars-rover-curiosity-mission-updates/ Like the TESS telescope, the NASA Parker Solar Probe radiated first light data recently. These referred to images from a set of four instruments meant to analyze the sun’s corona. The data provides NASA the opportunity to inspect all systems.

https://www.cnet.com/news/nasas-mission-to-touch-the-sun-beams-back-first-images-parker-solar-probe/

The Wide-Field for Solar Probe (WISPR) opened its protective door on September 9, 2018. It allowed Parker to take its first image of outer space. The WISPR includes an inner and external telescope at the back of Parker’s sophisticated heat shield. https://www.sri.com/work/projects/wide-field-imager-solar-probe-wispr The Probe also transmitted data from three instruments aboard the craft. These are ISOIS, FIELDS, and SWEAP. ISOIS refers to Integrated Science Investigation of the Sun. https://spacephysics.princeton.edu/missions-instruments/isois The FIELDS Experiment checks the magnetic and electric fields around the sun. http://fields.ssl.berkeley.edu/ SWEAP or Solar Wind Electrons Alphas and Protons take specific measurements of the solar wind. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sweap/ The Parker Solar Probe flies through space. It will finish the first of seven flybys of Venus on October 3, 2018. This accomplishment will put the Probe in an elliptical course around the sun that will last for around 150 days. LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think these long mission descriptions should be left out of the main NASA page. Looking at the current "recent and planned activities" section, listed missions include a link to the relevant Wikipedia page, and a short one-sentence, if that, description. As far as your actual writing, the links to external pages should be included as references, instead of having in-line URLs. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018

Please change the caption used in subsection 3.3 "Activities (2010-2017)" for Mars rover wheel picture from "Curiosity's wheel battered wheel after [..]" to "Curiosity's battered wheel after [..]" removing the double occurrence of the word "wheel". 128.178.52.93 (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Done with relish, as that sort of duplication irritates me. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Last sentence of last paragraph of intro section: "The final goal of this prpject is improving the safety of jet engines as well as increasing efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions." Note the misspelling; please change "prpject" to "project". 70.121.118.66 (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done --DannyS712 (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Pathfinder mission not listed

The table “Examples of robotic missions” in section “Examples of missions by target” (https://en.wikipedia.org/NASA#Examples_of_missions_by_target) is missing the Pathfinder mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Pathfinder). Dmalenic (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

NASAs aerodynamics work is missing and needs to be replaced.

A few years back there was already a topic on this subject and apparently it went nowhere. The entire aerodynamics section is still missing after it was removed years ago during a time of political vandalism.

In the summary you can see that this article used to have a section about their aerodynamic and aviation projects, as its still listed in right on top. But all information is gone from below. This was removed several years ago (At least 3 years, likely more) by vandals who quoted political reasons for doing so, and occured during a time when a certain political party was attacking NASA publicly and trying to get its funds reduced. For instance, they claimed NASA actually hindered the research on the X-1 and SR-71 (By providing free wind tunnel testing and computer control experts??? It made no sense then and makes no sense now).

This vandalism was also an issue in the X-1 article where mention of NASAs contributions had been removed and slandered in a similar fashion. but were restored. This included removal of a joint award they were issued alongside of Bell aircraft and Test Pilot Chuck Yeager.

From the previous statements made by members it is fairly clear that this was politically motivated to try and discredit the idea that government could provide research assistance. This is not an assumption, that is literally what they said at the time.

A quick look of the YF-12 article shows a huge amount of supersonic research assistance. There should be at least a few sentences about their assistance on the SR-71 and their use of the YF-12 to greatly improve supersonic aircraft stability and control and performance. This should be followed by a link to the NACA article for their huge contributions to aerospace before they became a space agency. As NACA work does not count at NASA work. But it should be linked for obvious reasons, as it was NASAs predecessor. The divisions that make up NACA still exist within NASA and so the work of those divisions should be mentioned and given proper links to the full articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100a:b016:5bc7:24f4:5c5c:83d2:acb0 (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Enabling auto information update

Is there a way to program Wikipedia to pull information from a specific website and post it here? To clarify, in the infobox the employees entry contains only numbers. The reference link is right next to it and the actual number is in a specific field in the table. Is it possible to link these two? LukeA1 (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019

The NASA Budget section contains outdated references to fiscal years 2015-2018, the U.S. is currently implementing its 2019 fiscal year, and Congress is debating the 2020 fiscal year budget. This section also includes errant budget numbers listed for 2017 and 2019, and incorrectly states that the NASA Transition Act of 2017 set NASA's budget at 19.5 billion (authorization bills do not set the budget, appropriations bills do). I would like to update this section to remove the outdated material and rely more on the Budget of NASA page for up-to-date information. CaseyDreier (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. LittlePuppers (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019

Remove bullets overlapping the picture of the radioisotope in the Activities (2010–2017) section 206.125.176.67 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Please explain what you want changed. I am not seeing any text overlap the photos. RudolfRed (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done User Fnlayson has taken care of this by moving the picture to the right side of the screen. The requestor possibly was looking at a very small screen (a smartphone?); sometimes bulleted lists interfere with images placed on the left. The only way to avoid this trouble is to place the image on the right if a bullet list is anywhere close. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(E/C) It wasn't the bullets [formatting]. It was poor arrangement of nearby images; too many images on left and too crowded. I adjusted image placements some to address this concern. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Restructure of article

@Fotaun: has made radical changes to the article's structure, most noticeably moving the creation section under History, which was put after Leadership. Granted, the existing structure is defective, for a number of reasons. But I think History should go first.

The Leadership section is also defective as is, because it combines generic information about the leadership structure with historical administrators. I agree restructuring is in order, but let's discuss the best way to do it first. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of having a dedicated history section? Fotaun (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As I said, I think it's a good idea, and it should go first (before Leadership). I'm not sure exactly the best way to integrate the historical parts of leadership and the early crewed programs (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, since these were integral to NASA's creation and expansion with JSC and KSC). Let's wait to get other editors' input, before we do any more restructuring. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Is nasa big

How many people are working in NASA DhruvDhokiya 2006 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Check the Infobox on the main article page. "Big" depends on what one considers big and can very from person to person. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Snow closed as not moved. The rationale was vague, the suggested title seemed incomplete, and no support was expressed. (non-admin closure) —BarrelProof (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

NASA → Aeronautics and Space Administration – better nameCityOfSails2 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Incomplete name given and weak justification for change. "NASA" has much more commonly used. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose (strongly) – It's most commonly known as "NASA", in LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Also, the request is missing "National" in the proposed name – it's not "ASA"! (...This'll be interesting. Per WP:SNOW, this one might be an early close.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Since NASA calls itself NASA on, e.g., copyright notices and almost everything else, it's unsurprising everyone else does too. 178.164.139.126 (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. This is an really an illogical request. ~Amkgp ✉ 02:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Space programme of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space programme of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#Space programme of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"US space program" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US space program. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#US space program until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the US space program

The US space program is not entirely contained in NASA; NASA is only the civilian side of the US national space program. There is also a military side (e.g. United States Space Force) and a private side (e.g. SpaceX) that was enabled by law changes in c. 1990s. Therefore, I have drafted an article about the subject at Draft:US space program, which turns out to be a WP:SPINOFF of the NASA article. Any thoughts?​​​​​ --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose acceptance of draft as long as it is is merely a copy-and-paste of NASA#Spaceflight_programs and the leads of several other articles. While the space program is not only NASA and the redirect above is perhaps not accurate, it is incredibly poor form to WP:DUPLICATE content in this way and the draft should be rejected unless completely rewritten. Reywas92Talk 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Look at the draft carefully. It is not just a cipher of NASA. I have copied several contents from SpaceX, Blue Origin, etc. If it is purely a cipher of NASA, then NASA would be the only organization operating the US space programs. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "cipher". Did I say this was "just" a copy of NASA? No, I know it also copies contents from other articles – and that's exactly the problem! Do not write articles by just copying NASA#Crewed_programs and pasting it into Draft:Space_program_of_the_United_States#Crewed_programs, by copying the lead sections of Axiom Space and SpaceX, etc. etc. etc. and pasting them into Draft:Space_program_of_the_United_States#Axiom_Space and Draft:Space_program_of_the_United_States#SpaceX, etc. If you want a new article on a new topic, you need to learn how to write one, not WP:DUPLICATE content elsewhere. Reywas92Talk 17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft needs more work but I think the topic is notable. Maybe a better title is "US space exploration" because it should include the private companies that don't actually have a space program on their own, they just launch to space to serve their clients. Barecode (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NASA/Archive_2&oldid=1142772145"