Talk:NASA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article NASA has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the NASA article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] X-1 Project

Any further mention of this? --TheNightRyder (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

The Space Shuttle Enterprise is never mentioned in the shuttle era section, while it did not leave the atmosphere, it was critical in the development of the space shuttle. Also, the star trek letter writing campaign should be mentioned. [[Space Shuttle Enterprise]] --King-of-no-pants 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I have 500 or so pages of 1960s era educational material regarding NASA satellites. Including several fold out posters. rather than trying to sell this on ebay I thought I would offer it up to you folks putting in the effort to maintain the NASA section of wikipedia. Please leave me a message on my user talk page if your interested. Hopefully this material will make it online in some form useful to wikipedia. Thanks for the good work guys --Alkivar 06-AUG-2004

Interesting! Is it public domain? If it is, you may want to consider putting the information on wikisource. --NeuronExMachina 07:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but would assume since it was released for educational purposes and because NASA is a governmental agency it should be. That and the fact the information is 40 years or so old and should be darn near to public domain anyways. --Alkivar
Putting it on wikisource is a great idea. --Dumbo1 17:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would however i do not have a functional scanner to OCR the sheets. hence why i offered it to anyone willing to undertake that project. Alkivar 01:36, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have a flatbed and a handheld scanner. I'd be happy to scan some stuff for youPedant 19:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that 95% of world population have no clue what these US state acronyms mean. Could you please expand them to full form and link them to appropriate articles ? --Taw

Done. --Brion VIBBER

Just wanted to remind the recent editor that it's ok to leave wiki links red. You don't need to change them all to working links. Astudent 06:31, 2003 Oct 9 (UTC)

A link to whatever the Chinese call their space agency or info on the taikonaut program would be useful. --zandperl

I just created a redirect on National Aeronautics and Space Administration (not sure if I did it right, please check) to NASA. But when I was looking at the Wikipedia:Redirect info page, it says redirects should go the other way, from the abbreviation (NASA) to the full name (National...). Someone else please check and make necessary changes. Thanks. --Zandperl 00:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps a friendly passing sysop could delete National Aeronautics and Space Administration and move NASA to that title? Audin 01:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page is at NASA because it is much better known as NASA instead of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In fact, NASA is a specific example (along with radar) given on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) for this exception to the general convention. Another example would be SETI. --Minesweeper 00:29, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with that being a good reason to leave it at NASA...since a redirect from NASA to National Aeronautics and Space Administration would both help people who don't know what NASA means find the article AND inform them of the meaning. Anyway, it doesn't matter really. The article has already cycled once from NASA to National Aeronautics and Space Administration and back again.--Audin 02:11, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I twidled around a bit with the layout, as it looked rather suckmatic. I realise 'history' isn't a great section-header, but I needed to move the TOC up to make more efficient use of space (sic). The NASA logo still looks a bit off-kilter, mostly because the source image itself doesn't have the blue circle centred (and the CSS to fix that isn't really browser-portable). If I have time I'll overwrite it with a centred (and perhaps a bit smaller) one. Fundamentally the page is never going to look nice until there's more text. -- Finlay McWalter 23:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK - I've really tried to improve this page - please feel free (obviously) to improve as you can - any suggestions for me then please post them here or on my talk page. Tompagenet 17:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

I think we need to add more content related to the fact that NASA doesn't just do space exploration. -Joseph 15:50, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

ditto that -- not much on earth-orbiting space stuff, either. All buck rogers. NASA certainly does not neglect the air part. It just ain't sexy enuf to get our attention -- or Congress', unfortunately. 24.75.67.173 19:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) BTW -- move contents to full name article and redirect NASA to there -- is my vote.
unfortunately nasa itself ignores the 'air' part far too much. -- Audin 03:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
NASA does not ignore the "air" part. If you were a subscriber to NASA Tech Briefs, you'd know that, Audin. It's just this article that still skips the point, as of this date. Quicksilver 11:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation vs. Full name

Any way we can put this up to a vote on which form we want to have it as? I personally completely disagree with leaving it as 'NASA' -Joseph 19:55, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Just announce the vote here with some options and an end time, vote for as many options as you prefer. To get enough people to see it, it's worth mentioning on a few of the Wikipedia:Community portal subpages. (I have not mentioned it elsewhere yet.) -- ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

What should be the title of this article? Indicate your vote(s) by signing your name under the appropriate title(s). Vote for as many as you wish. Voting will end September 10, 2004 10:06 GMT.

NASA:

  1. ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Adrian Pingstone 09:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Pedant 19:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)NASA 17 million hits on google... National Aeronautics and Space Administration 24 hundred hits on google. NASA calls itself NASA...Pedant

National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

  1. ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Audin 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. Alkivar 18:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) -- WITH REDIRECT FROM NASA
  4. I would rather see NASA as a redirect to the full title, as well. kmccoy (talk) 01:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Jord 16:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

  1. Audin 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NACA:

  1. Trekphiler 11:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[edit] NPOV dispute: comments

Regarding NPOV, here are a few points:

  • The Space Race was composed of numerous races: first artificial satellite, first human in space, first probe on the moon, first human on the moon, etc.
this information belongs on a page entitled "The Space Race" not on NASA which should solely deal with the exploits of the NASA research flights/projects and space missions. Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Words such as "near-legendary" and "groundbreaking" are opinion.
  • There are many references to public opinion. Public opinion is important, but many NASA missions--both unmanned and manned--have been completed successfully without much fanfare, and this doesn't diminish the success of the mission.
agreed but this is not something to cause NPOV argument Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • There is a bias towards unmanned space missions in the entire article, but most notably in the list of "NASA space missions" where there is a very short list of manned space missions and a very long list of unmanned space missions. The list of manned missions should be expanded, and perhaps both lists moved to a separate page: List of NASA space missions.
and how is this an NPOV argument? do you know what NPOV actually means? Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Here is my explanation: where two subjects are of equal importance, a small number of facts about Subject 1 and a large number of facts about Subject 2 means a bias towards Subject 2. "While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." -- Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Astudent 04:32, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
thats not exactly how i interpret it. if Subject 1 REPLACES Subject 2 to the articles detriment then i would call it NPOV. For example in an article about the 2004 US presidential election if it was 100% john kerry and 0% bush thats NPOV as its excluding one to BENEFIT the other... in this case we're not excluding Subject 2 to benefit Subject 1 ... we're not EXCLUDING anything. We just havent had anyone ADD it yet. thats my 2 cents worth anyway Alkivar 04:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but if the article on the 2004 election was 90% Kerry and 10% Bush, it would still be NPOV. I'm not saying that the article should be exactly 50-50 (just as feminists do not say that the gender ratio of employment should be exactly 50-50), but it should be roughly half-half. Astudent 14:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
  • There is no description of NASA's aeronautical research, eg. scramjet.

Astudent 01:43, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a duplicate post. The discussion "It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" has already noted the bias towards space. Astudent 14:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

[edit] NASA → National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Should be at full official name. Neutralitytalk 05:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I can't see any point in moving this. Ask the average person what NASA stands for and relatively few people will get it right. Lets follow the example of BBC, FIFA, NATO etc. where the common abbreviation is used. Jooler 09:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't even need to oppose - this is used as an example on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) - "Convention: Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)". -- Netoholic @ 09:24, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
    • Just because the naming convention page uses it as an example doesn't mean that the naming convention page is automatically correct. -Sean Curtin 00:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NASA is the normal means by which the organisation is referred to. -- Arwel 11:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The reason Wikipedia often avoids acronyms in titles is for disambiguation. The first 200 Google matches for NASA all refer to the same organisation. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:10, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NASA is by far the more common way of refering to this than the full name. older≠wiser 13:59, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • For once, Netoholic and I are in full agreement - the manual of style specifically refers to this article as being where it should be. →Raul654 17:13, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • If I say to Diane, "You should be more easy-going, like Jack here," I can hardly fault Jack when he later develops a weightier disposition. This is what we in the English language call an example, a simile used to make a particular point more clear, and I've never known one to be prescriptive. Too often we forget that we write the MOS, not the Hand of God, and the example added by some arbitrary contributor, while perhaps initially the very epitome of the case in point, is liable to be replaced at a later date. Support in protest of literal interpretation of our de facto policies. ADH (t&m) 18:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • ADH is right, the fact that this article is cited is not a reason to oppose this. Nevertheless, Oppose. —Michael Z. 16:29, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  • f*** the official name. Even the President calls it NASA. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because the President calls it that doesn't mean that that usage is automatically the proper usage. -Sean Curtin 00:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • You may like to search the policies and guidelines to see if you can find the terms "proper" or "official" there. On the contrary, we put articles where people will expect to find them. Not even someone with a ramrod where his lower intestine should be would type "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" into the find box. We'd all type NASA, and that's a good reason to put the article at "NASA". Another one is that editors could then link the acronym NASA as [[NASA]] instead of [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], without generating a redirect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. CIA, FBI, NAFTA and many more government agency and program acronyms are all redirects. NASA is not a special case. -Sean Curtin 00:41, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. NB NAFTA should probably be moved to the acronym; maybe CIA and FBI too (but they're abbreviations; maybe the convention is different?). Rd232 00:52, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just because something is formally correct does not mean it's the best title. I doubt you'd like to move Bill Gates to William Henry Gates, III as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- DCEdwards1966 15:44, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's pointless, and makes linking without redirects much more difficult than they need to be. Gene Nygaard 01:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't have Australia at the Commonwealth of Australia, North Korea isn't Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The reason CIA and FBI are redirected is that there are other things called CIA and FBI and so to avoid have CIA (intelligence service) or whatever, they are redirected. There isn't that problem with NASA Evil Monkey → Talk 03:10, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Despite this vote being 12-4 opposing the move, the page is currently (2005-15-11) at National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I can't see any vote overruling this, so I am moving the page back. Rasmus [[User_talk:Rasmus Faber|(talk)]] 11:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meatball?

NASA insignia, showing a wingshape and an orbiting spacecraft on a starfield. 1958–1975, 1992–present. Also known as the "meatball".

Could an explanation of the nickname "meatball" be put in the article somewhere? I hadn't heard it before, and saw it in the caption for one of the logos, and thought perhaps I could learn about it, but nope. - Vague | Rant 11:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

There's an article at meatball - I tried to set it up as a link in the description of the image, but it takes it out of the 'mouse-over' description. Berek 16:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, I know what a meatball is, but the logo didn't particularly raise the image of a meatball in my head upon seeing it, and still doesn't. So basically, I don't understand why it's called the "meatball", and can't find that out in the article. - Vague | Rant 04:38, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see the similarity either. Anyone have a good source on this? Seragenn 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe the sprackling of stars gives it the appearance of fine ground meat? That certainly is the traditional name. Daniel S. Goldin reinstitued it to bring back the "glory days".--Pharos 09:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Traditionally, a "meatball" is Navy fighter pilots' jargon for the old red, ball-shaped light that aviators used to determine their glideslope while on approach for landing on an aircraft carrier... (reference in Top Gun, when Cougar is trying to make a landing, radio control tells him to "call the ball," which means acknowledge that he sees the glideslope indicator). It is often coopted by those of a military mindset to apply to basically anything round. In its early days NASA was (and still is) a haven for ex-military folks, so it makes sense that the round NASA logo ended up being called a "meatball." Katefan0 16:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I recall that astronauts on project Apollo called it that in interviews in the mid 60's FWIW.

the following is from: The NASA "History of the Insignia page"

The NASA Insignia (more commonly referred to as the "meatball") reflects the history and tradition of the Agency and is used in all of the Agency's day-to-day communications materials. Designed in 1959 by former NASA employee James Modarelli, the NASA Insignia contains the following elements:

   * The sphere represents a planet
   * The stars represent space
   * The vector represents aeronautics
   * The orbit represents space travel

The NASA Logo has been retired since 1992. It is reserved for special use (such as for commercial merchandising purposes) and must be approved by the Visual Identity Coordinator at NASA Headquarters. The NASA Logo should never be used with the NASA Insignia.

The NASA Seal should be reserved for use in connection with the NASA Administrator, such as for award presentations, formal events and activities which are ceremonial or traditional in nature.

The Seal should never be used with the NASA Insignia. The two elements are intended for different purposes and are visually incompatible when seen side by side.

Contact the Visual Identity Coordinator at NASA Headquartes for advice on the use of the NASA Seal. (end excerpt) According to another reference, the meatball was never referred to officially as CORRECTION meatball until it was 'retired' in 1992.the "meatball" until 1975, when NASA decided a more modern logo was in order and switched to the "worm" Pedant 20:51, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC) It is still used for some purposes.

see also: NASA's word of the week 'meatball' page Pedant 20:23, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

  • The "logo" that was retired in 1992 was the worm; it was replaced by the prodigal meatball.--Pharos 20:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I moved the "Meatball" logo to the top. I feel its more relevent than a logo that hasn't been used in 50+ years. --Silver86 23:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NASA rank system

Does anybody have any info on NASA's rank system for astronauts? They do have one right? Presumably some would have to out-rank others or everybody wouldn't work together very well.

  • They don't, really. Once assigned to a crew, the astronaut assigned to be shuttle commander is the one responsible for the mission, with the shuttle pilot generally considered the second in command in terms of the overall mission. Mission specialists are astronauts that do the science missions, and payload specialists are generally astronauts that are on board specifically to work with a company-sponsored payload. There's no real rank system otherwise though. Everybody's assigned a clear-cut job that they're expected to do, they all train together and the missions are highly orchestrated. There's not really any "hey you, go do this" once they're on orbit. If there are problems I imagine the shuttle commander would have the final word, and of course there's a social hierarchy (socially the pilot astronauts are generally considered the alpha astronauts, as opposed to the mission specialists). But no real rank system as such. Katefan0 16:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

About "Other space agencies" - that IMO should be in its own article. Here should be only reference in section "Related topic". How name that new article? "List of space agencies"?

[edit] Mission insignia article?

I was browing around through some shuttle mission pages and got to wondering if there was an article, or perhaps just a paragraph, about all the different NASA mission insignia. Since every mission seems to have its own pretty cool and unique insignia I think it'd be cool if there was a little history or background, maybe even a page linking to all the different insignia as there are tons of them already uploaded to Wikipedia.

Does this strike anyone else as interesting? Anyone have some good knowledge about the mission insignia?

--Fxer 16:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of good material in Jenkins, and every press kit since the Apollo days explains that mission's insignia. It'd certainly be worth a page, but there's enough of a backlog - for me, anyway - as it is... Shimgray 19:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the latest Shuttle missions if you go to spaceflight.nasa.gov they always have a caption describing what the patches mean. For example here. This would be a good place to start for information. They could either go in the articles (being PD-USGov-NASA) or on the image description page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I've been digging through the Shuttle pages of late (slowly adding flight information for everyone as per Apollo 8), and some already have brief explanations of the insignia, as do some Apollo pages. It'd certainly be interesting to add. Shimgray 21:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
When I expanded some of the Gemini program articles I included a description of the mission insignia on them as well. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Race Winner?

NASA did not really win the "space race." Do not forget that the Russians were the first to put a satellite and a human in space. NASA made up for its loss by winning its own "moon race." RyanLivingston 10:43, July 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nasa did win the space race. The russians cheated badly. In order for them to have actually been considered putting a man in space they needed to land. The Russian guy jumped out of the pod while it was falling back to earth and parachuted to the ground. The Russians left this out because they knew it wouldn't count. They cheated badly throughout the entire space race, and hid under a blanket of secrecy while the US was always under the media. The Russians lost over 160 people in the space race while the US lost less than a dozen. They also tried to prove that Americans were stupid and tried to beat us to the moon with an unmanned mission at the same time as apollo 11. They wanted to collect dirt to make us look bad for wasting money by putting people on the moon. Instead the rocket slammed into the lunar surface. This also was not released to the public. Then they copied the American space shuttle. They simply lost the space race and didn't even compete fairly. NJguy281 10:36, January 4, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hmm?

What is the point of this?

English-speakers often pronounce NASA and the common Arab and Muslim name Nasser the same: these two should be distinguished.

Benwing 02:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


________________________________

[edit] Last moon shot?

When was the last trip to the moon?

I believe the last astronauts left the moon in December 1972. · Katefan0(scribble) 15:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
See Apollo 17; December 1972. Shimgray 15:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proper article title

Has it been established that this article should be called NASA rather than National Aeronautics and Space Administration? I believe acronyms are discouraged as article or category titles, and if there is no specific reason why this is NASA, I propose that it (and the category:NASA) be moved to their proper title. Paul 02:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Official policy states to use full names EXCEPT where the abbreviation/acronym is used more frequently, this stops people from having to write the full name out for NASA every time they link to it. NASA was given as a primary example of something where the abbreviation/acronym is more frequently used.  ALKIVAR™ 11:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
There is more than one NASA, though, hence, the name of the article should be changed.Michael Dorosh 21:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talkin' tekkie

NASA has a term SNERT, Schedule Never Equals Real Time. It makes me wonder if a tech terms page isn't appropriate. Comment? Trekphiler 11:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what our sister project Wiktionary is for. Please go write it over there. Thanks!  ALKIVAR™ 11:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon Mineralogy Mapper

Since when did an instrument have enough significance to be considered a complete mission in this section? We might as well start listing every instrument NASA has ever provided to any other space agency in order to not be biased. We are looking for notable missions that NASA has undertaken, not instrumentation that NASA has provided. Thus, I vote for a link to the Moon Mineralogy Mapper to be removed. Otherwise, one might as well provide links to every other instrument produced by the administration. --Marsbound2024 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission Info Box

Hello, I was working on Stardust (spacecraft) and I noticed that The German language Wikipedia article includes a mission infobox. This looks like a good idea to me. I checked a few NASA missions here, and we don't seem to have a NASA missionbox on the English Wikipedia. Would someone like to create one - ideally, it should be general enough to apply to all or most NASA misssions. If one does already exist, please point me to it. Thanks, Johntex\talk 21:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There's one for all the manned missions (and unmanned manned-spacecraft flights), but not for unmanned SFAIK. Shimgray | talk | 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! That is useful. I did not look at any of the manned missions. You are correct that they do have infoboxes. Some of the info (launch, return...) would be appropriate for Stardust (spacecraft), and some (crew...) would clearly not be appropriate. I will work up something. If there is anyone interested in a WikiProject to try to create a standardized infobox for unmanned missions, please let me know. Otherwise, I will use the manned mission infoboxes, as well as the German info box on the Stardust, as my guide. Johntex\talk 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again, I just found Wikipedia:WikiProject Unmanned space missions, so I have posted this question over there. It seems as though they are currently working on an info box for unmanned earth orbital vehicles, but that there is no currently active-effort for inter-planetary explorations such as Galileo spacecraft or my current case of Stardust (spacecraft). Johntex\talk 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NASA never minds the climate

NASA and NSA silences global warning researcher James Hansen of Goddar Institute. Big scandal all over the world news. 195.70.32.136 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NASA Missions Article Split

Okay, when I read this discussion, my opinion was to leave it the way it is because it would then become very complicated to search for articles in different places that is in the same subject. So I wish everyone of you to oppose on it so things would become more simple. Mr.parks 17:02, 13 May 2006 (PTC)

    • Sorry, I don't understand. What are you opposing? If it is the proposed split, then it would still be easily accessable via a link. Please clarify. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I mean to say that I don't want for part of NASA's missions be splited in a new article. Mr.parks 17:05, 16 May 2006 (PTC)

Well I am not sure where a "formal" discussion would be, so I would enter my thoughts here: some pages have links at the top of sections that goes into more detail about what is being talked about in that section. For instance, say the Vietnam War and the fall of Saigon. I think this should happen here and merely include notable missions on this page in the missions section, but all of the missions should be listed on another page. --Marsbound2024 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. I think a short list of notable missions with a link to a separate article is the most appropriate. --Jared 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. The list as it stands is just too long for this article. MLilburne 09:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. I agree with splitting off a new article to include all NASA's missions. Only the most significant missions should remain on the main NASA article.BuffaloChip97 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
SUPPORT. Slit that sucker out of the main article, makes it way too lang and redundent. Just make sure you add a link to it.--aceslead 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Cite Sources

"Mars Return Sample Mission" -- I would love to see some sources on this. Do not give sources on Mars Sample Return Mission that is currently being INDIVIDUALLY sought out by either NASA and ESA. I want to see a legitimate source that shows an ESA partnership; Wikipedia is not a crysal ball and as a result, I request a citation that definitively shows a NASA and ESA partnership. --Marsbound2024 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Please, please, rename this article to its full title, and whatever policy allows acronyms to serve as article titles, get rid of it. Paul 19:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

True, this article's title should be renamed to its full title. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree; users who type in NASA should have it redirected to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. To help reinforce my opinion, I think that users who type in WHO go to a disambiguation page for a reason. This could be "Who" as a pronoun, "The Who", and World Health Organization--to name a few. While there are probably no other terms to apply NASA to, we should keep a state of consistency and have NASA redirected; WHO first goes to a disambiguation page then if you click on WHO, it says "World Health Organization." NASA shouldn't be a special case and neither should any others.
Other cases: CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; UN - United Nations; EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency; TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority. Some of these first go to disambiguation pages.
By the way, another space agency--the European Space Agency--is also redirected from ESA to the entire name. --Marsbound2024 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Paul because I think this article should be rename this article to its full title. In addition, I oppose a new section for NASA's missions and wish this article was kept as whole. Alastor Moody 21:59, 23 May 2006 (PTC)

[edit] Sputnik crisis

Should there be mention of the Sputnik crisis under the History category next to "Sputnik Shock," since there is a page created for it? Or are they two different ideas? --Grant M 10:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've gotten the ball rolling on adding references to the article. The bizarre problem I am having in finding sources is the number of wikipedia clone sites out there (ie answer.com). Trying to find a source, for example, for the scientist who criticizes NASA as having a "stop-start" approach to space travel in google simply turns up a few dozen sites with wikipedia's article cut and paste into them (thanks to its open source nature), and the Wikipedia article itself as the first hit! I've used the Apollo Surface Journals as a web-based reference for the Apollo stuff, but it may behoove us to try and find printed sources - books or even primary source material - rather than simply making reference to wikipedia clones who are simply using wikipedia articles to begin with!Michael Dorosh 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In Google, do an Advanced Search, and tell it to exclude anything containing "Wikipedia." That will aid your search tremendously. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment date

Sorry, I just realized my edit summary was ambiguous. The reference does not state both that NASA was established in 1958 and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was dissolved in 1958. I should have not used a comma. I just wanted to add that the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, a precursor to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, existed until 1958. RockinRobTalk 02:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Every historical source I've ever turned up, mostly from NASA, gives 1958. The chap who keeps changing it has not yet, as far as I'm aware, provided any support beyond "I, with the mighty reliability of Some Guy On The Internet, say so". Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't the repeated changing of the establishment date over several months and in spite of repeated requests to cease or provide evidence constitute vandalism? Is there recourse available in the form of a block? --Cassavau 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I don't really care if the issue has been settled already, I'm going to harangue everyone about this anyway...gee, why would you want a piece of information (such as this agency's full name) to be in the title of the article? Why not use an acronym and thus provide less information to the reader when you could just as easily provide more? If you're going to do that, then why not make up nicknames for notable people and use them as the relevant article title? Make the reader guess! Leave 'em in the dark! That's what Wikipedia is all about, innit? Paul 23:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bitter rant continued: Why in the world would you have a piped link such as the following: [[United States|United States of America]]? that's why we have redirects Kthx Paul 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't want to make the reader guess . . . hence the name of the article. Nevertheless, I still think it should be the full name with a redirect from NASA. It only makes sense, even if 90% of people won't even notice the redirect. --Cassavau 20:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Cassavau. (What do you mean by "we don't want to make the reader guess?) Paul 21:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A reference to your 'rant' - "Make the reader guess! . . ." --Cassavau 23:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, duh :) Indeed, lets always do our best as to make Wikipedia as user-unfriendly as possible. :) Paul 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree w/ Cassavau - I think the title of the article should be the full name, especially since NASA is a disambiguant with more than one meaning.Michael Dorosh 21:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I have formally nominated NASA to be moved to National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Let the street run red with the blood of acronym article titles. Paul 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Comment - Doesn't WP:NC state that the most commonly used name should be used. I believe that NASA is most commonly used. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, the NASA Technical Reports Server finds 1789 documents using "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" out of almost one million documents, versus a quarter of a million with "NASA". This and MP3 seem to be classic examples of most-common-name-is-acronym. Shimgray | talk | 10:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As was pointed out the last time someone advocated this, NASA is a canonical example from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). My father previously worked for NASA, and I just called him and checked that yes, they do self-refer to themselves as NASA practically all the time. Normally, I agree that acronyms should be spelled out, but this is one of the exceptions. SnowFire 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. NASA is the commonly used title; the full name of the agency is very rarely spelled out. MLilburne 09:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with the two proceeding comments. Berek 09:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment NASA, and countless other technically-oriented organizations, are heavy users of jargon - which is mightily convenient for engineers and other NASA folk and more power to them, but confusing and uninformative for Wikipedia users. Why not just delete the full spelling of the agency altogether if it is so infrequently used? (Rhetorical answer to rhetorical question: because it is what the bloody thing is officially called!, and as an added bonus, is more informative to readers who may not be part of the "everybody" who knows what NASA stands for!) Paul 19:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Even people who don't originally know what NASA is will then call it "NASA" after they find out. Do you think Brazilian and Serbian space observers call it "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" because they're not in the US? (There's my rhetorical question to rebut your - uh - rhetoric ;) If non-Americans aren't clear what NASA means, they can click on the blue NASA link! Ain't Wikipedia great? Or, they could fumble around to pull up Wiktionary to find out what the hell "aeronautics" means...  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - better to use the full name for the article with a redirect from the acronym. More encyclopedic. -- Beardo 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support because NAMBLA, FCC, SEC and NAACP all redirect to their full names. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because IBM, AIDS, HIV and CD-ROM are all titled as acronyms.  ;) This convention appears to be paper thin. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Noting some above comments of User:PaulHanson: "Let the street run red with the blood of acronym article titles," "Please, please, rename this article to its full title, and whatever policy allows acronyms to serve as article titles, get rid of it." If you dislike ALL acronym named articles, it is somewhat bad form to litigate the issue at each individual article. The proper place to discuss it is on the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms), where you can suggest the general policy to be changed. SnowFire 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Each word and acronym is unique and the convention here is clearly quite malleable. The only possible convention here is "never use acronyms - unless it makes sense to use acronyms" unless you want to move Radar to Radio Detection and Ranging and CDROM to Compact Disc Read-Only Memory. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] world wind and lab claims

NASA made a software similar to google earth but with more options for types of imegegery and less resolution overall I think google earth is better but NASA World Wind is defenatly worth mentioning, esspecally on a page all about NASA. http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ Also occationaly scintists/teams of scientists/labs/companies ect... claim to have had a representave from NASA come and comment on there work/ask to use some of there reserch ect... sometimes thease claims sound likely, I wondered if there was any way of validating thease claims short of contacting NASA? Alan2here 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite

Hey all, I've done a rewrite at my sandbox where I've basically added and rewritten the history sections as well as (more importantly) condensed the lists. I think it's an improvement, your thoughts? --Atb129 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

rather than condensing the lists, it would be better to make them into prose where possible.. and possibly give a link to a complete list elsewhere if needed. Mlm42 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm yeah, I'll see what I can do --Atb129 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Prize to John C. Mather

Please revise using the wikipedia information and other sources if necessary on Dr. Mather to show that he is the first scientist at NASA to win the Nobel. This was announced Tuesday, October 4. Also please make the project that won the prize (COBE) more prominent in NASA's page.

[edit] Proposal

When NASA has build de Ares V rocket (CaLV), then it would has the possibility of send a spacecraft with Nuclear Pulse Propulsion (Medusa shaped) above the magnetosphere facing the Sun. One rocket can lift a 130 tons Medusa to LEO and another rocket send it to a High elliptical orbit. This spacecraft could reach the moon faster than projected Orion spacecraft. It could descend in the moon with a larger payload, making feasible the exploration and mining. It could return the Earth and landing using an aerobraking shield and small chemical engines. Medusa could move a large payload of minerals from Moon to Earth. Also This spacecraft could achive the long dreamed manned trip to Mars in a shorter time that current probes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.220.222.140 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 8, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Quite well written, though the structure of the article was out of order in places (I felt like I was going back and forth in time in a few spots).
2. Factually accurate?: Currently there are only three references for an article on a rather "open" government institution. I believe there are literally thousands of references regarding NASA's history and doings out there, and the article needs to make better use of them.
3. Broad in coverage?: Sometimes the topic gets lost (see below). And some things I expected to find are not there yet (e.g. where's NASA headquarters? what's the deal with the changes that NASA's logo has gone through?)
4. Neutral point of view?: Very well done.
5. Article stability? As stable as spaceflight organizations get.
6. Images?: Nice use of images. But don't we have one of Cape Canaveral rather than Florida?

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Will.i.am 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add a list of things that I saw when I was reading the article. This is not meant to be a criticism, but rather just things that could probably be cleaned up on your way to GA or even FA.

  1. "Space race" is italicized in its first mention, but is Wikilinked (no italics) in its second. The first mention also seems out of place with the second (which succinctly explains what the Space Race is). Also "Space R/race" is inconsistently capitalized in the article.
  2. von Braun could use a bit more of an introduction in the article. Did we recruit him? Was he seeking amnesty? I realize the article is wikilinked, but a sentence or two about it would be great for the narrative.
  3. A few sentences are long and confusing, e.g. Representatives from the U.S. Army (M.L. Raines, LTC, USA), Navy (P.L. Havenstein, CDR, USN) and Air Force (K.G. Lindell, COL, USAF) were selected/requested to provide assistance to the NASA Space Task Group through coordination with the existing U.S. military research and defense contracting infrastructure, and technical assistance resulting from experimental aircraft (and the associated military test pilot pool) development in the 1950s. I got lost after "coordination".
  4. The Apollo section is well-written and concise, but doesn't ever tell the reader how it relates to the NASA organization. Perhaps rewrite to tell us less about what the missions did and more about how specifically those programs affected NASA's image and internal organization, or how they followed NASA's goals at the time.
  5. Other early missions suffers the same issue.
  6. NASA's Future has its first paragraph only talking about missions in the past (or present, if you like).
  7. Also in that section, see the note #4. There is a fine line between presenting a list of what missions NASA has sponsered and how goals that NASA has were or were not met with missions. Some of this section appears more like a timeline of spacecraft missions more than an article about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
  8. 'ISS' needs to be spelled out in its first usage. I think we finally get that in its very last usage.
  9. NASA spaceflight missions seemed more like a summary of the article (or a great lead) rather than having stand-alone information.
  10. The See also section needs to be cleaned up. Conventional wisdom is that the article should not have anything in there that is already linked in the text (e.g. Space R/race, Apollo, etc.). And how exactly is "Astronomy Picture of the Day" related to the NASA organization? Just because its sponsored by them does not make it relevant to send readers there.

That's all I have for now. I hope these comments weren't too annoying and can help you improve the article. Good luck with the next nomination!--Will.i.am 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Government Program or Civilian Program

This article states that NASA is a government program, but I have always been under the impression that NASA is a program SPONSORED by the US. If you read the National Aeronautics and Space Act it states, "The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States". This seems to support that this is certainly a civilian agency supervised by the government. --Stivo 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the quote above, NASA excercises control over ACTIVITIES sponsored by the government. It seems to me that NASA is a civilian government agency as opposed to a military government one. - BillCJ 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
That's right. "Civilian" does not mean - "non-government". It means "non-military". Similarly, you could call the US Food and Drug Administration or the National Park Service civilian agenies, except that there would usually be no reason to make such a distinction in those cases. (I guess you could imagine an invading army attacking Big Bend National Park and then you could say that "...the civilians of the National Park Service were unable to hold the border...") Johntex\talk 18:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Shuttle after retirement

NASA plans retire the Shuttle by 2010, but the space planes perhaps could be use after this. Every orbiter was designed for 100 flights, a number never reached. With some modification they can transform into a single stage to orbit (SSTO) and so use for Space Tourism: orbital flights and/or visits to the ISS (currently visited at present) Replacing the three SSME by two Ramjet-Scramjet engines and firing the OMS in the upper atmosphere shuttle can reach the orbit. Shuttle would be thrown by a rail catapult in land gaining speed enough to ignite de Ramjets. LH2/LOX fuel would storage in tanks into the Payload Bay. This will convert the shuttle in a fully reusable spacecraft

Do you have some type of reference for these proposals? Grant 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You are suggesting a lot of new technology which is high risk and high cost and may end up going the same way as X-33. Consider also that using the atmosphere to get into space means that you are putting the orbiter under high stress, high heat 'reentry mode' on the way up. The orbiter needs to remain in good enough shape to come down again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.57.241.67 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budget conflict

The intro says one figure and the right panel says another. 66.157.60.165 03:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro was wrong, it has been fixed and a ref was added. Grant 03:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Previous article was written by this. User:201.220.222.140


[edit] Vandalism

This page is being vandalised by the same user repeatedly, can someone contact an administrator? --Chickenfeed9 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticism section

I just pulled the whole thing. While I appreciate it's probably a good thing to have one for an organization as large and expensive as N.A.S.A. which also operates on the cutting edge of it's field (three recipes for criticism), it was so poorly written and uncited I can't help but think it needs to be entirely redone from scratch. It really reads as unsalvagable. PoV, lack of citation, original research being stated as general fact when in fact it isn't, parts of it not really even belonging in that section but elsewhere in the article... I'd love to see this page get a better rating and if someone wants to put it back up and tweak it more power to them but honestly, I think it's best if someone tackles it from scratch (this time WITH appropriate references and links). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.156.26 (talk)

Support deletion. I noticed the same problems you've outlined in Feb. I added the fact tags in lieu of outright deletion, as I wanted to give the editors time to correct it, per Wiki guidelines. It doesn't look like it's even been touched since then, so thanks for deleting it. - BillCJ 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
A lot of junk had accumulated in that section. I cut all the dross and restored the bare core. You aren't seriously challenging any of the assertions therein, right? This stuff is common knowledge. Let me know which assertions you're questioning and I'll be glad to source them properly. --arkuat (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine, I think. It'd be better if the bad was included with the good, but there's not a seperate ISS section for it. NASA gets hurt with budget cuts. Cuts have caused a lot of programs to be cut back and drug out so the total cost goes up. -Fnlayson 03:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
And somebody should mention its primary flaw; NASA is not only a spaceflight provider, it is also a regulatory agency. In effect, it is the only business in the United States that is permitted to regulate its competitors.-Kalaong 14:07 23 March, 2008 (EST)

[edit] Johnson Space Center Incident

Proposing Deletion of Johnson Space Center Incident. I really doubt that this has much relevance to the NASA. Yes it did occur at a NASA facility, but it is very unlikely to have much if any impact on the NASA program as a whole. This subject already has a section here Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center and an article here Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center shooting Aalox 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur. We could leave the heading there for now with a "main" link, so readers who already new the section was here or are looking for info on the incident can find it, then delete it after a week or so. - BillCJ 01:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

[edit] POV

Removed this for the time being: [1]. --Bhadani (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Right. No way to address that kind of thing without explanation. -Fnlayson 17:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ps nassa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.119.211.105 (talk) 18:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motto

I'm not sure where, or how the Ad Astra Per Aspera got added to the article, without proper reference. That is the state motto of Kansas. I've spent a considerable amount of time looking, and there is no evidence that was ever NASA's motto. In fact, there is only one NASA document that term appears on, The Mars book 2 (PDF), and it is a bibliography of an article written by Aviation Week & Space Technology.

This article is about a keynote speech for a student symposium that was titled "Ad Astra Per Aspera", but nowhere does it state this is the motto of NASA, the speech was called "When We Have a Bad Day, We Go Fix It: The Loss of Columbia and Her Crew".

However, this interview with NASA's Dr. Süleyman Gokoglu gives detailed information about NASA's motto:

"When I first started working at NASA more than twenty years ago, the motto at the time was "For the benefit of all Mankind". It came under severe criticism of the extreme nationalists who wanted to change the word "Mankind" to "Americans", and of the extreme feminists who questioned why "Man" and not "Woman". In fact, it even got criticized by the animal rights groups and environmentalists for the exclusionist implication of "Mankind" towards animals and plants. And hence, NASA settled on "For the benefit of all".

To that end, I have changed the motto, which is now sourced and cited. If anyone can find a proper source to validate Ad Astra Per Aspera as being the official motto, I'd love to see the source, but from what I can find, it is just the public and media's interpretation of NASA, and not an official motto. Ariel♥Gold 12:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "sometimes mispronounced"

How is it possible to "mispronounce" an acronymn?Zebulin 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The same way any other word can be mispronounced. It's an acronym, not an abbreviation. There is a large segment of the population which pronounces NASA like the city Nassau. So, why are you objecting? samwaltz 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I object to the assertion that there is a wrong way and a right way to pronounce "nasa". How was the correct way established? Government acronyms Are generally established purely in written form. How to pronounce it is up to the reader. The only "correct" way to pronounce NASA is "National Aeronautics and Space Administration". Beyond that people could say "N-A-S-A" or "nassau" or "Nassay" or any other original pronunciation and there's not going to be anything to show how they're mispronouncing it, apart from wikipedia articles and would be pedants.Zebulin 17:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, which is as reputable a dictionary as any you will find (not "would be pedants"), gives a single "correct" pronunciation for this http://www.bartleby.com/61/10/N0021000.html . I have no idea what their sources/reasoning are on this. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Space and Rocket Center is not a NASA installation

The U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville serves as the welcome center for Marshall, but it is not a NASA facility. It is owned by the state of Alabama and operated by the Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission. As far as I know, the land on which it is situated still belongs to the Army.

  • Right. This article only lists the Rocket Center under the Tourism and museum facilities, which seems fine. --- Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Since February 2006 . . ."

Since February 2006 NASA's self-described mission statement is to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research."

So what was it before that? NASA has been around since 1957, and there is a line about their mission statement since 2006? What is that? What was NASA's original mission statement? And why is it not in the article?

LuYu (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] NASA / Nasa

I've been surprised recently to see the name of this organization printed as "Nasa" , even in stories from reputable institutions.
(e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7298608.stm - From the BBC -- or should I say Bbc;
or http://oglobo.globo.com/ciencia/mat/2008/03/14/laboratorio_japones_instalado_na_iss-426229092.asp - Brazilian Portuguese)
As far as I know, the style "Nasa" is never correct/acceptable. Is this worth mentioning in the article? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)