Talk:Johnson Space Center

Collaboration notes
Sandbox
 * Talk:Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center/Sandbox

Proposed outline?


 * 1) Lead
 * 2) History
 * 3) Facilities (buildings and purpose, Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, etc.)
 * 4) Training (astronaut, etc.)
 * 5) Research
 * 6) Visitor complex (onsite and "Space Center Houston")

not encyclopaedic-sounding
under history:

The history of the center is the history of America's human space flight program. Both illustrate the determination and the vision of people to rise to unexpected challenges and to work together to attain success.[4]

It's true but it's not encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs)

Use of a biased source: LBJ's supposed influence on Houston selection?
"Considering that, and the fact then President Johnson was a Texan, the choice became clear." Biased, opinionated sources should be used only to establish that opinions exist on controversial subjects, never for blithe assertions without attribution about supposed facts. I have posted this usage on Reliable sources/Noticeboard and someone there seems to agree with me. It doesn't matter if "Johnson's influence is clearly described in the cited source" if it's only the author's opinion; please read WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Reliable sources. There has been no notable, mainstream controversy established about Johnson's influence on the choice of Houston for MSC.

Who is Lily Koppel, and what makes her an authority on NASA's site selection processes for the Apollo program (as opposed to The Astronaut Wives Club (book))? That's a dubious kind of source to cite for the context of this article. No matter how much gossip about LBJ has been spread around, this is weak verification.

And the request for proof of a negative ("cite a source that establishes it did not happen") is never reasonable. That's the same "reasoning" fringe and conspiracy theorists use. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Political pressures on Houston selection
This section still needs a lot of work, to accurately and fairly describe from a NPOV the factors, technical and political, that went into selecting the Houston site. Thanks to for adding the Suddenly Tomorrow Came citation. However:
 * This doesn't seem to support the contentions made in the book The Astronaut Wives Club that Canaveral or the existing Mercury Control Center would have met the requirements (or were on the list considered by the selection committee). I have taken this to WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard, and gotten support for the view that this is not a reliable source for this purpose. This speculation should be removed, until such time as a more reliable source is found.
 * We make no mention of the fact that James Webb was the one who assigned the site selection committee, and made the final decision.
 * We should add more information (and use to cite some existing information) from Suddenly Tomorrow... e.g. complete requirements, the short list, and the actual political (Congressional) involvement in the decision, which involved lobbying by both Texas and Massachusetts (via JFK). JustinTime55 (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's an update: I've made the improvements I suggested above. But I also learned something about the supposed "Astronaut Wives Club allegations", when I bought the book for myself. It turns out this book in fact makes no such allegations as cited it to put in; they are apparently this person's "original research", or at least snthesis. AWC contains no "clear description" of Johnson's influence in the selection process; the most she wrote is a snarky comment about the Humble Oil executives who donated the land being "Johnson's cronies". There is absolutely no mention at all of:

Fact: No consideration was ever given to locate MSC at Cape Canaveral (there was not enough land available; as it was they had to make somewhat controversial use of eminent domain to kick some lower class people out of their property in order to build KSC). Fact: It would not have been smart to put the MSC there so close to the potentially hazardous rocket launch facility. And fact: Patrick Air Force Base was never considered; the Air Force was busy using it for the Air Force Space Command.)

Comedy of errors in John F. Kennedy
This urban legend that LBJ was a corrupt SOB who pulled strings to put the MSC in Houston reared its ugly head in Wikipedia once before back in March 2013, in the John F. Kennedy article. A similar misuse of a highly biased source (the arrogant, self-confessed "liberal elitist" Richard Reeves (American writer)) was seemed to have been used then too, to support this absurd assertion: Fact: Johnson supported NASA from its inception (which he helped sponsor) in 1958. MSC did not exist then; how could that possibly be a "cause"? Fact: Kennedy did not defer anything to Johnson, who recommended the Moon program based in turn on advice he solicited from Wehrner von Braun. Once again, I have no way of knowing, without reading Reeves' book, whether, as I suspect, this editor was similarly putting words in Reeves' mouth. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did some digging in the edit history and found that words were indeed put in Reeves' mouth, and the sentence I reverted was the result of three different editors, writing on top of each other, while leaving the Reeves cite in really the wrong position. The effect of this seems to be an unintentional "WP:synthesis" (hodgepodge) of things in several separate sources. Surprisingly, one of the editors seems to be quite experienced, but she changed the meaning of some wording and removed a reference. I may attempt to explain this on the Kennedy talk page; the Space policy section there needs some work to sort this out. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Did Cape Canaveral or Mercury Control Center "fit these parameters"?
You seem to have reinserted text written by another IP user 2601:4c1:c001:1878:c00f:507a:d436:ce86, with two new citations. "Although Cape Canaveral, the permanent site of the Launch Control Center and the original site of Mission Control, fit these parameters, the formal site selection process continued under the legislation."

These soruces do not say anything at all about the selection committee's criteria being met by Cape Canaveral, or the Mercury Control Center being suitable for Gemini and Apollo. (In fact, Holt specifically says the technology in the Mercury center was obsolete and inadequate for Apollo.) You can't make sources say what you want to support your WP:original research. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I considered it obvious Cape Canaveral did. For example, Cape Canaveral's 140,000+ acres far exceeds the requirement of 1000 acres. Moderate climate? Could Disney be wrong? I've added quite a few references that reinforce the obvious.  But if you still believe Cape Canaveral is lacking in any of the required parameters I'd be happy to provide additional specifics.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C1:C001:1878:CC45:C492:4758:9370 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You apparently do not understand our policy WP:No original research. (Please click on this link and read the page thoroughly.) Wikipedia is not a place for adding what seems "obvious" to you. It does not matter how obvious it seems; an encyclopedia is only to contain information verifiable by published reliable sources, that is, other people who "consider it obvious" and have explicitly stated so in their work. That is also the proper purpose of citing sources, not simply to pile on published works which happen to mention the particular topic, but do not make the conclusion you intend to make. In fact, doing so is a special kind of source abuse which we call synthesis. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You still don't get that, no matter how many sources you cite, this is your personal theory you are trying to prove, and this is not the place to do it. It is also the smallest of fringe theoies with a single adherent (you). Your "common sense" (not shared by NASA administrators T. Keith Glennan and James E. Webb) apparently didn't pick up the fact that NASA would not want its manned spacecraft center co-located with the launch facility, for safety reasons. Canaveral was never open to consideration as a site, and Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of second-guessing history. Congratulations; you have become a disruptive editor (not only here, but at Italian sausage, and someone will take this to an administrator. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Space Shuttle orbiter retirement
This section belongs in the Space Center Houston article, not JSC. The proposal to obtain an orbiter was submitted by Space Center Houston, not NASA, not the Johnson Space Center. Any objections to either removing this section or direct readers to the Space Center Houston artiicle?.--RadioFan (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Updated Economic and Personnel Numbers
Current numbers for personnel can be found here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.65.236.17 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

No mention of the Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory
No mention of NASA Johnson Space Center’s Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory (ASPL) where VASIMR was tested 2004/2005. Presumably distinct from Advanced Propulsion Physics Laboratory. - Rod57 (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)