Talk:Space advocacy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Space advocacy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Spaceflight High‑importance

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

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unencyclopedic

This article is essentially a POV directory of websites (see: What wikipedia is not. The "History" section is a wholly unreferenced essay and seems to be there as justification for the existance of the article. Mdbrownmsw 13:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing needs a lot of rewriting and referencing - but that doesn't make the topic unencyclopedic. I think that rewriting and referencing should be done in lieu of deleting the article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it off the list for unencyclopedic for now and have edited and added relevant references supporting the factual nature of this article. I will endevour to make the article as neutral as possible also and remove statements that cannot be backed up by actual references from credible sources. I will continue to add to this research over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankStratford (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help in any way possible. I was thinking about merging Space and survival into this article because it does not really stand on its own very well. Sirstubby 13:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of SETI Institute and The Planetary Society

I added the SETI Institute and The Planetary Society. Their IRS 990 forms indicate they are well funded space advocacy organizations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.228.221 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

woefully deficient

There is an extreme amount of space advocacy material that could be included in this article... I am a space advocate, but I'd need a lot of help tempering the stuff down to wikipedia standards. Moonus111 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lobbying versus educating as the primary purpose of the organization

For US based organizations it is easy to determine if the primary purpose is education or lobbying. Under IRS tax codes, 501c3 organizations are organized primarily to educate the public and can only do some lobbying. 501c4, 527, and political action committees are organized primarily for lobbying. I will move the 501c3 organizations to education unless anyone has an objection.Waters.Justin (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Space advocacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070913144035/http://www.astronautix.com:80/lvfam/gerketry.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/gerketry.htm

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} 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is missing the most effective advocacy in decades of advocacy: actually doing something

The section on organizations "Actively involved" is missing what is arguably the most effective form of advocacy: actually building and economically-demonstrating a business case for space access.

No mention of SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, or the many other smaller entities who are actually advancing space advocacy by privately-funded spaceflight technology development programs, advancing through many milestones (including flight), and in each case above, gaining a very large following by the broader public. In my view, this is an oversight, as it seems to be the single factor that has most goosed up public interest in spaceflight technology since 2000.

Just a partial list of these widely-followed advancements are the:

development and flight of several launch vehicle designs and maybe five new rocket engines since 2000 by SpaceX
the rather massive multi-year, multi-phase privately-funded development program by SpaceX to develop reusable launch vehicle technology. Now late in its high-altitude, high-velocity flight testing phase; with initial reflight of one of the half-dozen landed boosters slated for later in 2016.
private development of several (substantial) rockets and capsules by Blue Origin, notably the New Shepard
private development of several rocket engines (BE-1, BE-2, BE-3 and thrusters by Blue Origin, most notably the BE-4 which is late in ground testing now and has even been contracted for use by one of the large legacy and traditionally government-funded launch service provider companies (United Launch Alliance).
Virgin Galactic's development of SpaceShipTwo; even though slow getting throught its test program, there has been a rather large public following of events with that program for more than ten years.
others could be listed...

The point is, advocacy comes in many forms. The article could be improved by also including some of the doing rather than merely theorizing and political-agitating forms of advocacy. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space advocacy. 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/20132200351600/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm

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) 06:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space advocacy. 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/20132200351600/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm

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) 08:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Notability of "Space Advocacy" and developing topics on Wikipedia

I much enjoyed finding "Space Advocacy" addressed on WP. This is a new and important area so questions of notability and verification arise. There is little historical literature to cite for newly developing topics. I (and the editors) have difficulty with new topics which don't have a solid citation basis.

My personal interest in the topic is that I recently prepared a related article "[Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW)]", which does not meet reviewer's standards for reliable third-party citations (I have about 50 citations, but insufficient third-party.

I welcome your suggestions, guidance, etc. Thanks, and best regards. David --Fieldsde (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article

Dear fellow editors,

I wish to propose this article as a new sub-section. ThanksLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US and Russia space exploration partnerships

An article published in the New York Times (December 18, 2018) mentioned that officials of the Russian Government hope to convince the United States in continuing combined piloted exploration ventures. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/world/europe/russia-space-us.html However, US President Donald Trump already suggested that the United States will only support the International Space Station (ISS) until 2025. The ISS remains a primary joint project until the present day. According to the Washington Post, the Trump administration plans to turn the ISS into a sort of orbiting real estate scheme that the private sector will manage. The basis of the Post was an internal document of the national Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/02/11/the-trump-administration-wants-to-turn-the-international-space-station-into-a-commercially-run-venture/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7da2e8cfe35c The report further revealed President Trump wants to sell the Stake of the United States in the ISS allow private firms and organizations (Virgin Galactic and SpaceX) so these can use the Station for the companies’ exclusive projects. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/donald-trump-wants-to-sell-off-the-iss-what-does-that-mean/9422758 According to the latest news, the launch of the SpaceX rocket on December 5, 2018 was proof of how the private sector is helping stimulate the next generation of space exploration by the United States. https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-u-s-space-cooperation-falls-back-to-earth/29671845.html The NASA announced on December 13, 2018 that under its Space Policy Directive, the Agency plans to work with American corporations in designing and developing new as well as reusable systems for US astronauts to land on the moon. This may start on 2024 with the objective of sending a crew in 2028. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-seeks-us-partners-to-develop-reusable-systems-to-land-astronauts-on-moon The NASA will employ a system with three independent elements for transferring, landing, and safe return of humans to and from the moon. The primary aspect is Gateway for launching roundtrip voyages to and from the lunar surface. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/questions-nasas-new-spaceship The lunar Gateway modules are scheduled for launching to the Moon starting 2022. The funding commitment remains impending. However, the first to be launched is the Power and Propulsion Element or PPE. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/09/nasa-lunar-gateway-plans/ NASA will procure the PPE by way of a partnership between the private and public sectors. The baseline capabilities of PPE include generating 50 KW (electrical power) and 40 KW (electric propulsion system). NASA will award a single or more than one contract for the industry partnership. This will be for the development and demonstration of the PPE. https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-request-proposals-for-first-gateway-element-later-this-summer/

I don’t see that these proposed edits have anything at all to do with the subject of this article. Moreover there’s nothing new that could be added to other articles either. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“Decolonising space”? Really?

The section “decolonizing space” — it uses the American spelling, of course — is an embarrassment to the entire encyclopaedia.

It consists entirely of a tenuously extended metaphor, the intended meaning of which will be entirely opaque to the vast majority of English speakers.

The concept of colonisation has well-known connotations in international relations and biology — both of which fields have deep links to the history, theory, and practice of human spaceflight.

If editors insist on defacing Wikipedia with niche-making, self-promotional nonsense, they should at the very least attempt to do so intelligibly.

“Questioning the decision making of and reasons for any colonial space policy, labour and land exploitation with postcolonial critique” isn’t even a sentence. Foxmilder (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]