Talk:Naval Ordnance Laboratory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Energy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

You might want to add this link as a source of infromation on the wind tunnel. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123018124

If I knew how I would add it myself.

I can add it - where in the page do you recommend it be placed? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrant1741 (talkcontribs) 13:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I figured out an appropriate place to put it and it is now there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgrant1741 (talkcontribs) 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

proposed rewrite[edit]

I think both the flags are well deserved, this is not an encyclopedia article and it needs a much less conversational tone. Fair warning: I plan to rewrite it in 48 hours. Callowschoolboy (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we're way overdue. Here goes the neighborhood! Callowschoolboy (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Extant Issues[edit]

That first sentence is way too vague. If the truth of the matter is vague we should at least make it sound better than just "they did cool stuff." In the 4th paragraph, headed "White Oak", we need to avoid the phrase "the Navy man." In the second paragraph of the 200 section, is it incorrect to change 'facility' --> 'project'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callowschoolboy (talkcontribs) 00:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


I did a pretty lame job of eliminating the "Gee, these are neat" thing, I don't know the whole situation so I can't expand it, just smooth out that wrinkle. Speaking of expanding, perhaps that paragraph could have a better home elsewhere, in something closer to its original form. "the designers could not have predicted the phenomenal growth" is that true? I mean, it's DC... The 2nd paragraph of "The beginning of the end" is still to kooky, I'm not sure how to even establish the necessity of this little anecdote. There definitely needs to be more, this is surely documented in local newspapers much better than that. As an uninitiate, I am confused by the use of both the current and an older name of what is apparently now NWSC Carderock, and the fact that there are WP articles on both. I'm assuming that since NAVSEA chose the Navy Yard that the next paragraph means GSA took over the White Oak site, readers can be very easily confused by all these twists and turns, even after simplification. this may need to be addressed further later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callowschoolboy (talkcontribs) 03:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


As a former NOL employee, I don't find significant lack of neutrality or inappropriate tone here. I did, however, remove a one-line attempt at sardonic humor associated with the DTMB wind tunnel. --Gary (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism[edit]

I suggest that someone should seek a source for the content introduced by this edit. The IP address in question has been used at times for vandalism. - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Contributor speaks[edit]

This was previously a stub, and I supplied most of the material. My father worked there for about 20 years, and many years later, I, as an employee of David Taylor Model Basin (DTMB), was involved with White Oak when it was being dis-established, and was involved with relocating the 200+ basic research scientists to DTMB/NSWC Carderock.

NOL conducted research in many areas - it was a "Cold War" lab. Some stuff is public information, while other stuff is still classified or which I really can't elaborate on. At least until I retire from the Federal Government.

"They did cool stuff" - I tried to restrict my description to public information - that which has been released by the U.S. Navy, or is already available on other web sites.

General Comments - No problems with changing the "kooky" tone (although I would prefer "wacko").

Confusing Names? David Taylor Model Basin / Naval Ship Research & Development Center/ David Taylor Research Center / Carderock Division, NSWC / NSWC Carderock - all the same place. However, ETCHED IN the STONE gates is the inscription "David W. Taylor Model Basin - United States Navy".

"The Navy Man" - this is a direct quote from the Navy's "On The Surface" magazine - stet.

"The Beginning of the End" - This was a major explosion, and probably did make the newspapers of the day. I did some minor rewrite on this.

Location and Phenomonal growth - No, in 1944 this was a 200 acre farm nestled among other 200 acre farms. No one envisioned that 20 or 30 years later, someone would build townhouses just outside the back fence...

I hope to write more about this fascinating place in a few months...

Dave David M. Hennessey (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

NAVSEA's decision to move to the Washington Navy Yard - Tongue-in-cheek.

Flags ?[edit]

Callowschoolboy,

Could you review the flags and see if they are still appropriate? Thanks, Dave David M. Hennessey (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Flag Removal[edit]

The Neutrality and Tone flags were added almost two years ago. The article has been subsequently edited by the flagger and several others. An August 2008 request to the flagger has not been responded to.

Absent any objection, I propose to remove the flags in 30 days - May 12, 2010

David M. Hennessey (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ordnance vs Ordinance?[edit]

Both are valid spellings, but they are used inconsistently in this article. I am not sure which one is correct. David Eccleston —Preceding undated comment added 17:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC).