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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
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: No move. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:43, 13 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. 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.--220.127.116.11 (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.
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)
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)
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. TREKphilerany 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)
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.
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.18.104.22.168 (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... 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
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)