Talk:NASA/Archive 2

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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%5B%5D

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"unmanned" is mispelled.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

{{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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Sources:

• ESA and NASA planning space telescope in 2020, T3
• Dr Maya Cooper Of Nasa Says Astronauts Need Cooking Skills, The Huffington Post
• Space Program: A Brazilian in space, Brazilian Government
• Nasa expert to talk on digitals, The Witness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.175.253 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

• A few uses out of the many is not common usage. But if you think it is likely create redirect at North American Space Agency to this article. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:31, 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:NASA/CommentsTalk: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.

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

@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)

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110419234227/http://space.flatoday.net/2011/04/nasa-awards-270-million-for-commercial.html to http://space.flatoday.net/2011/04/nasa-awards-270-million-for-commercial.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091028210341/http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_09-165_Bolden_and_Garver.html to http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_09-165_Bolden_and_Garver.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725172011/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/astp/astp.html to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/astp/astp.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ourarchives.wikispaces.net/National%2BAeronautics%2Band%2BSpace%2BAdministration%2BRecords%2BAvailable%2Bat%2Bthe%2BNational%2BArchives%2Bat%2BAtlanta

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) 09:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716013403/http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science to http://nasascience.nasa.gov/earth-science
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716023622/http://nasascience.nasa.gov/heliophysics to http://nasascience.nasa.gov/heliophysics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716013614/http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics to http://nasascience.nasa.gov/astrophysics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603211738/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mercury-overview.htm to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/mercury/mercury-overview.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007153222/http://astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnv.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/index.cfm?act=default.page&level=11&page=1980
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527194012/http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TM-2004-212069.pdf to http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/TM-2004-212069.pdf

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) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006080619/http://spacefrontier.org/2011/09/15/monster-rocket/ to http://spacefrontier.org/2011/09/15/monster-rocket/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329041733/http://planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/Planetary_Society_Statement_20110712.pdf to http://planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/Planetary_Society_Statement_20110712.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011131311/http://astronautix.com/craft/prot7969.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/prot7969.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026132859/http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Butts_NASA's_Joint_Cost-Schedule_Paradox_-_A_History_of_Denial.pdf to http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Nexgen_Downloads/Butts_NASA's_Joint_Cost-Schedule_Paradox_-_A_History_of_Denial.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011094958/http://astronautix.com/craft/spacelab.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spacelab.htm
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/611et9ZyN?url=http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hst.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hst.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100509015137/http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php to http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/whereis_nh.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811182952/http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Fulltext/2003/01000/Will_Xenon_Be_a_Stranger_or_a_Friend___The_Cost,.2.aspx to http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Fulltext/2003/01000/Will_Xenon_Be_a_Stranger_or_a_Friend___The_Cost,.2.aspx

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) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{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)