Talk:Michoud Assembly Facility

Info concerning external fuel tank. Can any one make sinthetic spider silk, or spider web that can be incorperated into the foam. Not only is it lite weight but also very strong. If not throughout entire foam, what about encasing the foam. Very good idea if possible to do. We are living in the beginning of the 21st century; let's think about what we can do! Make our children and grandchildren be awestruck by our achievments like we were by our forefathers. Mack D. Kraemer. mackraem@cox.net.

The article said, "for the past thirty years...since September 5, 1973" The phrase "for the past thirty years" is clearly 7 years out of date, and each year grows one more year out of date. I rewrote the sentence to remove this problem. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:S-IC-D hurricane damage at Michoud.ogv shows hurricane damage from Hurricane Betsy in 1965. It might be interesting. I have not included it today because there is lots more good video of Michoud in the Saturn V Quarterly Film Report series, of which I have several episodes. Perhaps I can string some clips together. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks! I've copied it to Wikimedia Commons, where it is in the Michoud Assembly Facility category as well as the Hurricane Betsy category. For free licensed or public domain media, please feel free to upload directly to Commons, thanks again. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The hyperlinks to http://www.lockheedmartin.com/michoud/ are generating 404 errors. I'm unsure of the usual wikipedia protocol for hyperlinks that generate 404's. Are they typically removed? --71.207.245.221 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michoud Assembly Facility. 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/20140221181134/http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Michoud-Facility-in-NO-East-becoming-hub-for-major-film-productions-138522804.html to http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Michoud-Facility-in-NO-East-becoming-hub-for-major-film-productions-138522804.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515011909/http://www.businessreport.com/article/20120917/BUSINESSREPORT0112/120919831/ to http://www.businessreport.com/article/20120917/BUSINESSREPORT0112/120919831/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105002650/http://maf.msfc.nasa.gov/ to http://maf.msfc.nasa.gov/

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: 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) 06:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Completed CS-1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find any NASA page supporting the idea that NASA renamed its Michoud Assembly Facility to Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory. The sources cited are the Canadian Encyclopedia, which does not have any references for that fact; and a Flickr page, which says it only in the caption. There is a Facebook page for the so-called Hadfield Rocket Factory, but it is not run by NASA. Google Maps' Street View of the same location (see https://goo.gl/maps/8skGoumMMpZjKbc28) shows it is still named Michoud. The Chris Hadfield wiki page also claims the MAF was renamed for him, but cites the same two non-NASA references.

Searching the internet, I was unable to find any NASA page that mentions a 'Hadfield Rocket Factory'. There are some pages that show entrance signs for NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center renamed for Chris Hadfield. And in common-sense terms, the United States' NASA would not be naming anything after a Canadian, no matter how nice the guy is.

Therefore, the Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory appears to be a prank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.176.33 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Concur with these assessments, coming from the Office of Strategic Communications on-site. This facility was never called that, and remains Michoud Assembly Facility, as it has for decades under NASA. 198.120.15.117 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Hm. First mention in article added by anon Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:4872:8600:8DE2:2E64:110C:FFFA. Expanded by User:Raphael.concorde, who uploaded images supposedly of it, including (since deleted) obvious photoshop and false text stolen image -- more looking into this clearly needed; anyone who is also on Commons and can tag dubious images for attention, please do so, thanks. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I started discussion on Commons at the administrator's noticeboard Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Raphael.concorde_and_Chris_A._Hadfield_Rocket_Factory, has a few links re this apparent hoax. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    All,

    I'm not throwing the edit in myself this time, but trying to be responsible and flagging this anonymous IP address's edit from 20 Jan 2025, reintroducing the "Chris Hadfield Rocket Factory."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michoud_Assembly_Facility&oldid=1270687872

    I suspect the same individual is responsible for harassing NASA on Google Maps by repeatedly tagging a building on site as the Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory nearly every day for the last year. As soon as Google takes it down, he gets it right back up.

    Since it's been over a year here since this was an issue, I assume this isn't something that can be locked down and protected, right? Or does the serial harassment across the internet, even if not by the same individual, count as some grounds for protection?

    I hope the season is treating you well, @Infrogmation. 198.120.15.87 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, I appreciate all the cleanup that's been going on in this article. I've been reviewing some of the edits made by the banned user. To avoid a conflict of interest on my part, rather than editing directly, I wanted to open a dialog about the inaccuracies and wording in this section. Many of these claims have dead links and no citations. The following inaccuracies should be corrected or removed:

- Building 1, 2, 3... is how the user was organizing their thoughts, and not a numbering/naming system used on site.

- There is only one Vertical Assembly Building (VAB); the shorter high bay is known as the "Vertical Welding Center" (VWC).

- Retail stores, gym, media lab, and medical area are not contained in the factory (103)

- Other described functions are part of 101 and 102, not 103.

- 320 is not 3-20, and contains no dormitories nor a restaurant, but rather offices and sustainment support elements (including some attributed to 103).

- Unclear what "building 4" is referring to, as no building is dedicated to those functions.

- "The plaza" does not exist, and there is no "test simulator" located in this area. Testing generally occurs at Stennis, whereas Michoud is focused on fabrication and assembly.

- The NSF Center was irreparably damaged in a tornado and was demolished. I believe the storm was in early 2017 - need to double check the exact dates of each.

174.69.127.25 (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• I made a preliminary cleanup run-through of that section. More work needed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear all. I would like to raise an issue that has been going back and forth on this article in recent weeks. It appears to be a repeat about an alleged hoax from 2023 that stems from the false notion that NASA "renamed" the Michoud Assembly Facility after Chris Hadfield, a renowed and famous Canadian astronaut who worked with the American space agency during his career. While the objective truth is Michoud was never officially named after him, the connection to Hadfield appears to be a viral or popular phenomenon on the internet for the past 10 or 12 years, but most notably in the last eight or so. I apologise for my long essay but I think now is the time to provide an opportunity to clear the air.

As of early 2026, my current understanding - through Google searches, using AI chatboxes and reading articles from the Sarnia Journal, wiki Fandom, and the Canadian Encyclopedia - the "Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory" is an unofficial name or nickname for a workshop within the facility that went viral years back and led to the spread of internet misinformation, confusion or simply artificial embellishment or unethical promotion. As Hadfield is known to millions, this is not the first time he has been the subject of internet praks, hoaxes, or misinformation. A case study to reflect back on is the International Space Station cannabis experiment hoax. From reading the 2023 dispute, it is clear that there was a now-blocked (User:Raphael.concorde who allegedly uploaded digitally altered photos of the facility (since removed), and reading the comments from the users "Infrogmation" and a legacy IP contributor "198.120.15.117" that shed light on the "apparent" hoax, and yes it says "apparent" in there. So while it is firmly clear that Michoud has always beared its name for decades, there is another issue that I am trying to highlight.

As I've said before, online sources indicate that CAHRF is an unofficial name for a workshop or a popular nickname for Michoud, and furthermore, the source on 64 Parishes explicity quotes "Contrary to many popular accounts, NASA did not rename this facility the 'Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory' in 2012 to honor the accomplished Canadian astronaut". Additionally, the article on the Sarnia Journal states "Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that a NASA facility was named after Col. Hadfield. This reference has been removed to reflect accurate information provided by NASA".

These articles by 64 Parishes and the Sarnia Journal tell me (in respective order) that 'popular culture' refers to MAF by the connection with Hadfield, and NASA corrected that the agency didn't rename it; and obviously a NASA facility like Kennedy or Johnson does not bear Hadfield's name (Sarnia Journal). However, there is nothing further in both sources that explicity deny the notion that CAHRF itself is a hoax, or it being a workshop or nickname for the facility. I tried adding this notion to the article more than once but it was reverted every time despite my efforts in clarifying.

After the latest revert by Special:Contributions/~2026-34427-1 I went back to this article's talk page and after reading further comments from early 2025, this extended debate appears to be a subjective argument between a particular individual (or two) who has a personal grudge against the CAHRF rather than an objective revelation with firm proof from authoritive sources like I stated.

From reading the Michoud article's revision history, understanding the writing style of the edit captions by users Special:Contributions/~2025-41231-56 and "198.120.15.87" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.120.15.87 , after reading the infomration on the talk page on User_talk:198.120.15.117, I suspect that one individual based at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (either as an employee or contractor for the agency) is responsible for perpetuating these disputes, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, as highlighted by User:MrScorch6200 and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. On a trivial note, I think it is unfair to soley pass all the blame onto User:Raphael.concorde and accuse him of creating this entire scandal, when user User:Jarrod_Baniqued mentioned CAHRF back in 2021 which was in the article for more than two years https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michoud_Assembly_Facility&diff=prev&oldid=1045006007 and again in November 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michoud_Assembly_Facility&oldid=1324656373 .This further shows that a lot of editors believe what I've been saying.

I believe this may be unprofessional conduct by someone working for (or with) NASA, or at least using their machines to edit. Furthermore this does not put the agency in a good position by editing Wikipedia articles in trying to 'correct misinformation' as if the Apollo moon program was a hoax or not. If CAHRF (including its notions of it being a workshop like Google claims) is really is a hoax, there needs to be concrete evidence from independent authoritive sources that explicity state so. I left a message on the talk page on User_talk:~2025-41231-56 but I did not receive a reply. I did say that I think it is worth mentioning this in the article to finally resolve the matter, otherwise this may continue to escalate.

To conclude, I strongly recommend that someone please find an authoritive reference to an article or journal that finally can put a stop to this back-and-forth edit war dispute. Thank you for reading ~2025-41998-13 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello all,

I was not apprised or aware of this discussion on the noticeboard. Thank you for flagging this aberration. Upon further reflection, I must admit that I did not sufficiently fact-check the Canadian Encyclopedia entry; I genuinely didn't know that I would be caught up in an edit war. No malice was intended on my part. I deserve some of the blame, and I apologize. I fully support any further inquiry into the matter of whoever created the misinformation. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, I concur with the recommendation above. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no "debate". The supposed "Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory" was never anything but a blatant hoax. -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer our question, did you read the entire essay I typed? First of all, how do you explain that there were articles published on legitimate sources over the years? An internet nickname or prank doesn't end up in a newspaper or news journal unless it has been revealed as one. I think you and the dude from NASA need to calm down and understand where I am coming from. I'm disussing this matter in good faith. User:Jarrod Baniqued has been cooperative so far in achknowledging his honest mistake and he's committed to investigating further. I would appreciate if you can provide a thorough explanation from square one. Lastly, I believe the only way to resolve this is to put a statement in the article about the misinformation. The repeated deletion of the aformentioned references without discussion that describe the issue is not helpful to the situation. ~2025-41998-13 (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, and went over the case a few years ago, starting without preconceptions and finding significant deliberate fraud. By the way, are you familiar with Raphael Concorde? Or Rafael Jean-Luc Alexandre, Raphael Cryslar, Daniel Molybdenum, Daniel Steelman, or John Chryslar? Wondering simply, Infrogmation (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither NASA's website nor verified social media accounts make any reference to a "Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory" or variations of the name in any of its postings or publications. Currently, all references to such a place existing are from:

• A Facebook page that uses the some of the same clearly modified photos that were previously flagged in this article (or multimedia taken from NASA's publicly available media library with fantastical captions added about terrorist attacks, misattributed events, and nonexistent facilities beyond the federal property's bounds),
• Two Flickr accounts sharing names with two of the identified sockpuppet accounts, frequently appropriating content from NASA's public AVAIL media library
• A single Fandom Wiki user's personal page regarding the Kerbal Space Program video game, and
• A YouTube channel connected to the same individual as the Kerbal page, which reposts NASA's content with Marshall Space Flight Center and Michoud's names replaced, as well as subject material (NASA, the World Trade Center) consistent with the Flickr.

The Google Gemini AI results are redundant, only referencing those sources. However, on Michoud's comprehensive list of tenants no such name is listed, nor do any of the confirmed tenants claim connection to Chris Hadfield on their respective webpages or social media. The other credible sources and publications mentioned (Sarnia Journal, 64 Parishes) only acknowledge the concept of the Chris A. Hadfield Rocket Factory to refute its existence, as corrective action for the previous misinformation; the Canadian Encyclopedia Chris Hadfield article currently makes no mention of it.

While I've investigated this thoroughly, it is strictly in the interest of presenting facts without bias or misinformation, and is not a targeted vendetta, as suggested. Wikipedia's COI policy exists to "strongly discourage COI editing," specifically in regards to shaping a narrative and financial compensation, not outright prevent contributions from writers close to the subject matter. It also addresses SME's role and welcomes contributions.

Placing the burden of proof on the party claiming something doesn't exist makes less sense than requesting the claimant provide specifics of what entity/company specifically calls it that, what aerospace hardware it has supposedly produced, and where any public information is to verify that. Per Wikipedia:Notability, editorial/corrective footnotes and disclaimers do not meet the criteria for mentioning the hoax in the article, either. CaptBumbeaux (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your input into this matter. Wow, this is quite a story, pretty much dejavu of the Cannabis internet prank on the ISS. Thank you very much for clearing the air with your thorough investigation. I can confidently say this is case closed. ~2025-41998-13 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)