Talk:Kennedy Space Center/Archive 1

Accomplishments Beyond Human Spaceflight[edit]

Though Kennedy Space Center is primarily known for launching humans for NASA, lots of other work happens on center too, even regarding robotic and cargo launch capability. There are areas of research that KSC has been a leader in for decades. Additional information is needed on this work.

Also, since the cancellation of Constellation in 2010, there's been a major push at Kennedy Space Center to become a multi-user spaceport. KSC business Much progress has been made on this front, changing the dynamics of the center currently and for the future, and it's not currently referenced in this article.

These additions may warrant some reformatting of the sections currently available and updating the lead. Thanks everyone for contributing to this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleystaxi (talk • contribs) 01:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the reference to Jules Verne[edit]

This is a comment on the edit I performed, dated 08:48, 27 July 2005 which removed the following from the "History" section:

"In 1865 Jules Verne first described in his novel From the Earth to the Moon the launch of a rocket from Cape Canaveral."

The reason for this edit is that the Columbiad (the name of the giant cannon used to fire a crewed canon shell to the moon) was not based in Cape Canaveral. It was indeed based in florida, in a fictional location called stone hill, just south of Lake Okeechobee. An illustration from the original edition shows its location, and can be found on the following page:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/talune/talune_chap11.html

The idea that Jules Verne based his fictional moon expedition in the same location that would be used a century later in the Apollo programme is very seductive but nonetheless inaccurate. It is in the interest of factual accuracy that this scentence was edited from the article.

Requested move[edit]

John F. Kennedy Space Center → Kennedy Space Center – Although it is officially named John F. Kennedy Space Center, by far the most commonly used name is Kennedy Space Center. Naming conventions state that the most common usage should be used, so this page should be moved to comply. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Support Its been a while since I lived in Orlando, but I seem to recall that even the people workin at the Space Center called it the Kennedy Space Center. TomStar81 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I believe that the official name might be more appropriate. "Kennedy Space Center" redirects here so people can't miss the page.--Hús ö nd 00:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as the common name is just a shortening of the full name, it is better to use the full name here. -- Beardo 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: use common name. Bubba ditto 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Per nom. Even the map picture at the top of the article says "Kennedy Space Center". —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I could go either way, but it's usually abbreviated as KSC, and sometimes referred to as Cape Canaveral. 132.205.44.134 04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Beans are Go!" at KSC[edit]

I would like to see someone do a section on the human touch to the operations at KSC. For example, see this article: http://enterfiringroom.ksc.nasa.gov/funFactBeans.htm

Why Cape Canaveral?[edit]

I'd like to see it explained why Cape Canaveral was chosen for the Kennedy Space Center. --Criticalthinker 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KSC is there because CCAFS was there. That article says,

The area had been used by the government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in continental USA for this purpose as it allowed for launches out toward the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States allowing for rockets to get a boost from the earth's rotation.

(sdsds - talk) 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they above explanation from the [CCAFS] article should some how be incorperated into the history section of this article. posted by eastadam 10/12/09 0215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Cape Canaveral not a perfect location[edit]

The rotation velocity of the earth at equator is 465.11 m/s. There is a trigonometric relation between the latitude of an area on earth and the rotation velocity of this area. Rotation velocity of a point on earth = 465.11 * cos latitude of that point. For a latitude of 28° as in Cape Canaveral the factor cos 28° is about 88%. For a latitude of 5° as in Kourou the factor cos 5° is about 99.6%. This tranlates in a rotation velocity eastward of about 405 m/s in Cape Canaveral and about 465 m/s in Kourou. Sending satellites to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) requests less adjustement in the course if the launching site is near the equator. I have no recent numbers but a few years ago Arianespace held more than 50 percent of the world market for boosting satellites to GTO. Russian built Soyuz rockets are to be launched from Kourou in late 2008. --Ridow 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great math! Unfortunately in Wikipedia 2+2 does not = 4, unless an editor can find a reference which says so! Sorry. Student7 12:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job to be done! There is a couple of milions of formulations in WP without a reference. Please warm up with all the parts in the Kennedy Space Center article without a reference.--Ridow 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (a bit late here, sorry). It does seem unfair to us later editors to make us put references on stuff when the original editors got away with placing a couple of references at the bottom. The best thing to do is to be an originator of an article! Get away with more! :) I do mostly place references on all my stuff, particularly when I'm inserting one-liners. I really do try with new articles, too (seeing what happened in the bad old days). Please help maintain the credibility of Wikipedia articles by (in turn) challenging other editors. This is why and how I started. Other editors challenged my statements! Thanks for your contribution (even though it got moved). Student7 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this belongs in the CCAFS article, not the KSC article. The only orbits currently of interest for KSC are ISS rendezvous and Hubble rendezvous. That's because currently only the Shuttle launches from KSC, and those are the only two destinations for any of the remaining Shuttle flights. Discussion of the site's characteristics for launching into equatorial geostationary orbit is not pertinent to the article. (Perhaps starting a ==Future use== section, where it could have some pertinence, makes sense?) Also, although the math is logical, it isn't iron-clad, e.g. it does not include potential atmospheric effects. In any case the desirability of low latitudes and east-facing coastlines for geostationary launch sites should be easy to reference. Maybe the spaceport article would be a good place for it? (sdsds - talk) 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdsds. The name of the section was Current use so maybe my contribution is not at the right place. But I think that the absence of such launches from KSC is in part explained by the advantage of the geographic location of Kourou over KSC. That why I see these small formulations as part of the KSC article. (The other explanation is the abscence of a US launcher able to match the offering of Arianespace but it's an other problem). What do you think?--Ridow 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I've put a reference with American measurements to please the readers. --Ridow 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the articles on Cape Canaveral and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station note, the US wanted a location on the mainland US for logistics reasons. South Florida was already well-populated (Miami - Palm Beach). Cape Canaveral offered a large area of undeveloped or lightly-developed and -populated land, with the Cape ("projection of land into the ocean") offering less risk to populated areas. Perhaps not perfect, but everything is a trade-off. It was the best balance of factors. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter names in Spaceport template[edit]

Regarding the template {{Spaceport}} used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.

(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

We have nothing about budget in here. Fl Today, 1/23/08 had editorial with $70,000 ave per worker, $600 million payroll. $4 billion economic impact on Florida. Doesn't seem to fit neatly in article. These factoids seema a bit too jerky for "prime time." Need something more cohesive. Student7 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but it might be difficult to get a KSC specific budget. Consider adding an economic impact sentence(s) for the area instead. Just an idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceport USA[edit]

When I visited in 1987, the Visitor's Center (citeable by their souvenir literature) was branded as Spaceport USA. Did they change the name back, and is their any history about this branding issue? MMetro (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At that time, the Visitor Center was operated by a different contractor, TW Services. When the current contractor took over in May of 1995, the changed the name to Kennedy Space Center Visitor Center. Then later to Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex. Unfortunately, I don't have the dates of the name changes. Safiel (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have there own police force.[edit]

Figure this is worth posting. The Kennedy Space center does have its own police force, complete with an ERT, and Huey helicopters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect date info[edit]

The article says the center was renamed after President Kennedy on on November 19, 1963, which is 3 days before his death. This is an obvious error that should be corrected. I cannot find a verifiable source that correctly identifies the date, and have therefore tagged this sentence as needing verification. Can someone please help resolve this? Truthanado (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On November 28, 1963 President Lyndon B. Johnson announced in a televised address that Cape Canaveral would be renamed Cape Kennedy in memory of President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated six days earlier. President Johnson said the name change had been sanctioned by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.

Executive Order Number 11129, issued by President Johnson on November 29, 1963 decreed that the NASA Launch Operations Center (LOC), including facilities on Merritt Island and Cape Canaveral, would be renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA. That name change officially took effect on December 20, 1963.

The Air Force subsequently changed the name of the Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex to Cape Kennedy Air Force Station (CKAFS). That name change took somewhat longer, but became official on January 22, 1964. KStrohm (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LC-41 in KSC?[edit]

The map shows LC-41 on the Cape Canaveral A.F. Station rather than KSC. But when I took the "Then and Now" tour a few days ago, we were going north on the road and before we got to LC-41, the guide said that we were back on KSC. Also, the Guided Tours booklet they gave us gives LC-41 as KSC, not the Cape. What is correct? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SLC-41 is part of CCAFS, it always has been. It isn't even a NASA pad. --G W… 17:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KSC map

That is what I thought. This map from the KSC tour booklet shows 41 on KSC, and the map for the Cape shows 40 as the nothern-most pad at the Cape. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 19:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that your map is clearly wrong. --G W… 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tour guide thought 41 was on KSC too, so it was OK for us to take pictures again. On the Cape, we could not take pictures except when the bus stopped. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically SLC-41 is a part of KSC. However, the Air Force leases the land to launch vehicle contractors (currently ULA for the Atlas V) and it is generally treated like it is a part of CCAFS as opposed to KSC. So the map was probably correct.--Caleystaxi (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VAB[edit]

The intro says that the VAB is the 4th largest structure by volume. In the 1960s, my memory is that it was the largest, but I don't have a reference for that. If it can be referenced, the article could state that it was the largest at the time it was built. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 00:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference to this in the congressional record. However the claim that it's the 4th largest needs to be referenced. I'm finding mention of it being the 2nd largest but those are a bit old.--RadioFan (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allanhurst[edit]

There's an interesting bit of background about the black community of Allanhurst, which the KSC replaced, here:

http://www.prx.org/pieces/41113/transcripts/104153

I'd like to start a section on that in the wikipedia page, but I'm not sure if this is a good enough cite, and I've never started a section, I usually just do bit edits. Any thoughts?

Baron ridiculous (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My first impulse is to say, no, this public radio transcript is not good enough, by itself, for such a potentially controversial edit. First off, a quick Google search shows the town's name is spelled Allenhurst. It apparently was founded by a white man named Allen decades earlier, but I saw no reference to it being an all-black community. I found its location on both Mapquest and Google maps, and it's quite a ways north of KSC proper (VAB and the launch pads). It's separated from this by a wildlife refuge, and is part of the land NASA, the Air Force and the Army Corps of Engineers deemed necessary to keep uninhabited for safety reasons, based on the expected design of a Nova super-rocket, which could have been up to five times as powerful as the Saturn V that was actually developed (imagine being under that if it blew up or went off course!)

There were other towns affected as well, some a bit farther north. Did you decide to single out Allenhurst because of Jemison identifying it as an "all-black community"?

The history of how NASA acquired the land is given in Moonport http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/contents.html , chapter 5 (start at the Merritt Island Purchace section.) Lots of property owners (not identified by race) were unhappy; the history section could probably use some expansion, but please remember to be mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE. This radio piece seems to be based on anecdotal evidence, with an obvious bias (as the title Race and the Space Race) shows. I couldn't seem to find when it was broadcast. I think you need additional sources to verify if an entirely black community was displaced, and facts to verify how and to what extent black residents were affected.

Since ex-astronaut Mae Jemison participated in this broadcast, perhaps mention of it might fit in her article.

Looks like you have a bit of research to do. Good luck. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. No, I'd heard of Allenhurst when I was in high school in Florida, I worked with some black guys at Sears who told me that black citrus grove landowners in Allenhurst had been forced out for pennies on the dollar when NASA moved in. Of course, they also told me the moon landings were faked, so a grain of salt and all that, but it was a pretty well known story in the black community in the Cape Canaveral region in the 70s, I think. I'll look into it some more.Baron ridiculous (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info should be moved to CCAFS[edit]

Maybe not everyone understands, but the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station are two separate and distinct facilities. Accordingly, there are some sections of this article which belong there rather than here:

I intend to move these sections out of here and merge them into the CCAFS page; I don't expect it to be controversial. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hagiography" of JFK?[edit]

The two recent edits made by User:Randy Kryn don't seem, in my opinion, to be necessary to improve this article, and seem to be motivated by the desire to praise JFK, especially in context of the fact he's recently been editing Cultural depictions of John F. Kennedy. To wit:

1) It should not be necessary to repeat the full name of the Center in the first sentence of the History section, since it is given in the first sentence of the introduction (in the spirit of WP:LASTNAME);

2) Adding Template:John F. Kennedy at the bottom seems to unnecessarily clutter the article with off-topic information; this page is relevant to the U.S. space program, not all details of Kennedy's life and presidency; and the other templates reflect this. Kennedy's page is wikilinked to his name in the article, and this should be sufficient for anyone interested in Kennedy. (To be fair, the article would be improved by placing the first such wikilink in a mention of why the facility was named after him by his successor (i.e., Apollo program) in the introduction, as is indicated by good summary style.) (I.e., I think "build the web" is trumped by not cluttering the article with irrelevancy.)

Without objection, I'd like to revert both these edits. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the alert. I agree with number one, a good revert. The template should, at least I think so, remain, as it was Kennedy who called for the moon missions and kick-started this space center before his death. It is part of John Kennedy's legacy, no doubt of that, and a template at the bottom (I made sure to put it after the other templates on the page because of its relevancy - although it is still, imnho, quite relevant) seems appropriate. Doesn't clutter the page, I doubt many will notice it, and it points out once it's opened that the Space Center surely is an item of John Kennedy's legacy. As for my motivation, no, it was not added to praise Kennedy and pat him on his aching back, although he does deserve praise for this. I added it because it falls into a series of pages which likely should have the Kennedy template on it and didn't. Today I've "praised" (if that was my mission) Dwight Eisenhower to high heaven by additions to his template and adding his template to relevant articles which didn't yet contain it. I happen to like templates, and have focused my Wikipedia attention lately on the templates of U.S. presidents. Kennedy was a fine president, and I'm learning more about him as I work on his template, as I have learned and gained new respect for the others I've worked on, be they right, left, or center. The 'Cultural depictions of John F. Kennedy' page I co-edited was made because Wikipedia didn't have one, I fondly remember my Kennedy toys and games and suggested to another editor that we ought to have one, and it filled a hole in Kennedy's template. I'd never heard of the "G.I. Joe" Kennedy image before, so again, I at least learned something with my work on it, which hopefully is one side-benefit most Wikipedia editors experience during their edits. Again, thank for the heads up. Randy Kryn 19:43 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe after a day or so you can come back and put the template back on if you think about it more, but I won't revert you on it. JFK was the inspiration and backbone for the Apollo missions (it was, or course, his call that created the events) and for their connection to this Center, so his template on it seems appropriate. A short life well-lived. Randy Kryn 19:57 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the article Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center has the LBJ template at the bottom of its page. It is not misguided to include it at the bottom of this page, either. I believe Randy's inclusion of it on this page was done in NPOV good faith. Templates are a (collapsible) roadmap for further information and information for general readers is what Wikipedia is about. Adding relevant templates to related articles is not undue weight or misguided "praise". Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't feel strongly enough about it to persist, and I've put it back. I didn't know whether this was standard practice. It just seems logically backward to me: the template's purpose is to navigate from a person to all notable details of his life, including namesakes. It's certainly appropriate in the person's article, but since the reader is already here, it just seems logically backward to me. (What's the point, when a hyperlink on the name takes you to the person's article, and then to whatever... ?) And the topics on the template are only coincidentally related to this one by the person's name (e.g., how does "Ich bin ein Berliner" relate to KSC?)

I guess there's a precedent, since I see Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has one (though Harry S. Truman Building doesn't, maybe because it's less mature?)

I'm sorry, Randy, when I made the change I didn't know you from Adam; I didn't realize you're a kindred spirit who appreciates that era of the space program, and I certainly didn't think you were acting in bad faith. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know myself from Adam. Thanks, and I added both the Truman template onto the building, which I didn't know was named after Truman (and it onto his template as well) and also added the 'U.S. Department of State' template to it, so lots of good things, that among them, came from this discussion. The way of Wikipedia. I had a chuckle from the section title, and learned a new word, quite clever. Kennedy may be a saint (just ask Marilyn), but not a recognized one. Yet (Pope Francis does surprise). Randy Kryn 16:27 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Massive rewrite[edit]

The Apollo program was an integral part of KSC's history, being the very reason it was built. This is lost in the restructuring done by Caleystaxi (talk · contribs), which has some good things going for it, but has a bit of a recentist bent in the dilution of its history. The reason for KSC's establishment used to be in the history section (labeled Apollo program) before. Some of this needs to be moved back up to Formation in order to explain why Cape Canaveral wasn't sufficient for Apollo, whose monster Saturn V required assembly in a hangar and mobile transport to one of several pads. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennedy Space Center. 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/20140404002127/http://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/en/What%20We%20Offer/Physical%20Assets to http://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/en/What%20We%20Offer/Physical%20Assets

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 08:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kennedy Space Center. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kennedy Space Center. 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/20150922143748/http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/cultural.htm to http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/cultural.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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kennedy Space Center. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility[edit]

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 to merge. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fits well into existing "facilities" section; no indication that it has notability for a separate article. Only source is not "independent". PamD 23:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merge my page if you must. JuniorRocketScientist (talk) 00:09, 3 May 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.

Done JustinTime55 (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn "Mammoth" V?[edit]

It seems idiomatic to me when I saw this line:

"Also, Cape Canaveral was inadequate to host the new launch facility design required for the mammoth 363-foot (111 m) tall, 7,500,000-pound-force (33,000 kN) thrust Saturn V rocket, which would be assembled vertically in a large hangar and transported on a mobile platform to one of several launch pads."

I want to remove the word "mammoth" as per WP:IDIOM. What are your thoughts with this?

—Your's sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, mammoth doesn't really qualify as a cliche or idiom; it has been well accepted in common English as a metaphorical adjective (something immense of its kind). I know we need to be conscious of encyclopedic tone and avoid WP:EDITORIAL, but that doesn't really apply here either, as a value judgement is not involved. It's being used to signify that the Saturn V was of immense size compared to other rockets. I think the word should stay. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]