Talk:Air Force Space Command

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

This redirect 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This redirect 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Question

Is Defense Meteorological Support Program supposed to be a reference to Defense Meteorological Satellite Program? —Fleminra June 28, 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to say that Space Force is a continuation of the mission of AFSC? AFSC had an explicit facilitation and peacekeeping mission -- in order to not violate the international space treaty to which the US are signatories. Space Force has an explicit aggressive, "warfighting" mission. So to me, saying it's a continuation and budding off of AFSC smacks of propaganda. Who wrote this? Do we know if it was a .mil author? It looks like a recruiting leaflet. Shava23 (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

Just my opinion, but this reads more like a public relations article than an encyclopedia one. I dont have enough subject knowledge to correct it, though :(

eg: 'As the nation's "silent sentinels," ICBMs, and the people who operate them, have remained on continuous around-the-clock alert since 1959 '

Concur. It uses the Pentagon's favorite buzzwords such as "Warfighter"...And what the heck is "counterspace"? Kortoso (talk)

Other Space Operations

Could someone elabrate on "other space operations"? That sounds very vague to me.

Lightguy79 (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 12-June 2008[reply]

Anyone want to have a look at the related article 17th Test Squadron and improve it? Rd232 ^talk 18:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location Omission 7th SWS Beale AFB

Air Force Space Command (AFSC) operates AN/FPS-115 PAVE PAWS system at three distinct sites, of which the 7th Space Warning Squadron is omitted from this article. 7th SWS a guest unit at Beale AFB, California as verified by this Beale AFB page. I speculate the omision arises because "Location" section provides for (1) AFSC operated bases, (2) AFSC operated stations, but omits (3) guest units hosted on bases or stations operated by another command. – 67.188.106.196 (talk) 08:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Mission Force notable?

http://www.peterson.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/957235/space-mission-force-comes-to-peterson

Hcobb (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Air Force Space Command. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819090310/http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108115 to http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/108115

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Space Corps Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was United States Space Corps to remain separate from Air Force Space Command. Merge proposal tags will be removed. Operator873^CONNECT 21:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging United States Space Corps into Air Force Space Command for a number of reasons. 1) The Space Corps is an entirely hypothetical organization, which is at this moment a brief overview of what it would potentially look like and a list of support and opposition for the measure. This could be moved into a paragraph either here or at United States Air Force 2) It makes more sense to have a hypothetical organization proposal be listed at a existing page where it is more accessible, rather than as a standalone page. It's small enough for an easy merger which I strongly support as Merge Garuda28 (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge there is literally no reason it rates its own article; especially since it hasn't even been approved2600:100E:B006:9C1A:74BD:8BA7:C8C3:1F47 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge - at least for now. United States Space Corps has gotten half again more views this month than Air Force Space Command, showing that there is interest in the Space Corps as a separate topic. The topic clearly meets WP:GNG. I'd wait at least six months to see what becomes of the proposal. If the article hasn't grown substantially by that point, and the proposal appears to be dead at that time, then we can merge. - BilCat (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Bilcat: Oppose Merge for the time being. If nothing comes to fruition with the Space Corps within a reasonable amount of time (remember we're talking about the government making a brand new agency), then merge. Bitsdotlies talk 06:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. This should be a separate article since the whole point is to describe a separate command. separate command, separate article. Also, the Space Corps would incorporate the space functions of the navy and army. Its not just an air force topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:80:1D4D:5419:2B3:FB45:29CD (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - Only on the basis of this six military branch having generated headlines, however it has yet to make it out of Congress. As of 09/19/2017, two versions of the NDAA 2018 were passed each by the House and the Senate, H.R.2810 and S.Amdt.545 respectively. The House version includes the creation of a Space Corps, and the Senate version doe not. Neovu79 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed split out of Launch Service Agreements

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this proposal was to not split off the "Launch Service Agreements" section to it's own article. The split proposal tag will be removed. - wolf 06:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Proposed split out of Launch Service Agreements because Launch Service Agreement redirects to AFSC#History - There is similar (but more up to date) text in Vulcan (rocket) and maybe elsewhere. - Needs its own article so expansion does not unbalance this article ? Can also update with detail from [1] - Rod57 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Launch Service Agreements - Update Request

Hello! I'm a member of ULA's communications team, and would like to submit a request to update this article's "Launch Service Agreements" section. I have a WP:Conflict of Interest, so I won't be editing the article directly. Currently, the section does not say which companies were awarded contracts. I propose the following update:

In October 2018, the U.S. Air Force announced three companies as winners of LSA contracts collectively worth approximately $2 billion; Blue Origin received $500 million for the New Glenn rocket, Northrop Grumman was awarded $792 million for OmegA development, and ULA received $967 million for the Vulcan Centaur rocket.^[1]^[2]

References

^ Erwin, Sandra (October 10, 2018). "Air Force awards launch vehicle development contracts to Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, ULA". SpaceNews. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
^ Erwin, Sandra (October 11, 2018). "Air Force funding three new rockets to compete with SpaceX but only intends to buy launch services from two providers". SpaceNews. Retrieved February 26, 2019.

I may represent ULA, but I believe the proposed update is entirely factual, neutral, and fair to all companies mentioned. Will an editor please review this request and update the article? Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ULA christa: This is a fine (and a bit overdue) thing to add. I'll implement it on the article. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EggOfReason: Thank you very much! ULA christa (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logo Information Request

To any who are knowledgeable about such matters, it would be nice to see an addition of a section on the logo's creation and design. With the latest scrutiny concerning the logo of the US Space Force resembling the logo from Star Trek, I'm sure many would be interested to know if there were any previous comparisons with this logo, and if one inspired the other. Livingston —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information in the Seal of the United States Space Force article about this seal that discusses the AFSPC shield. And it does appear that Star Trek drew inspiration from this shield for the Starfleet seal, which was created some time afterwards (after 1982). - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Erwin, Sandra (October 10, 2018). "Air Force awards launch vehicle development contracts to Blue Origin, Northrop Grumman, ULA". SpaceNews. Retrieved February 26, 2019.

[2] Erwin, Sandra (October 11, 2018). "Air Force funding three new rockets to compete with SpaceX but only intends to buy launch services from two providers". SpaceNews. Retrieved February 26, 2019.

[1]

[2]