![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
From the version of the House NDAA. Section 6605 says "No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to establish a military department or corps separate from or subordinate to the current military departments, including a Space Corps in the Department of the Air Force, or a similar such corps in any other military department." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. It's also lacking a lot of details. Would be much better to remove the list of people who "support" and "oppose" and instead insert content that speaks on what the proposal is and on the history of the U.S. Air Force Space Command and related components. Jon Ivy ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
When this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:United_States_Space_Force&oldid=846440445
Was started it simply read "United States Space Force" with no mention of a draft.
Now there's an entirely different article titled "United States Space Force" with no mention in the edits of the article I created.
Why is this? -- Bojackh ( talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is very inaccurate and as noted doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. The US Navy is also involved in US space operations. The information showing that US space interests are currently handled by multiple entities is available yet not cited in this article. Please update this article to reflect the numerous entities, including the USAF, currently overseeing US space interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 ( talk • contribs)
It does not take a point of view to construct a fact based article. It takes research. NASA and SPACEX were both examples of non-DoD entities handling US space interests. Again, this article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 ( talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1B3:AFD9:5BC9:9516:1143:C194 ( talk) 10:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Very for-profit commercial solicitors keep adding USAF trash in the intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F178:EDD1:A4DC:437D:4C9D:AE93 ( talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts "In June 2017, the United States House Committee on Armed Services (HASC)" discusses a proposal to create a US Space Force, and then ends with a move to ban the creation of such a service. The following paragraph mentions a number of senior figures who have opposed "this proposal" or "this effort". It is not made clear whether the proposal or effort that they are opposing is the creation of the space force, or the banning of its creation.
190.236.206.160 ( talk) 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
190.236.206.160 ( talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The rational section states that one of the reasons that the U.S. is developing a space force is because of the capability of China to launch ASAT missiles, however the source in question ( http://theweek.com/articles/779779/does-america-really-need-space-force) just states this in the context of what warfare in space would look like. I do not believe that this is an inherently inherently wrong conclusion, however the use of this source out of context appears to violate WP:SYN since it is making a conclusion that the article itself does not reach. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Would this article increase in quality if a "Criticisms" section was added? It seems that the "Space Force" has gotten some negative attention in the press, and this article still is just a proposal and the pros. It might benefit from a section along the lines of http://time.com/5316007/space-force-trump/. 50.39.171.4 ( talk) 22:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
since the WH released a memorandum for a Space Command?
BlueD954 ( talk) 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
https://spacenews.com/president-trump-issues-order-to-create-u-s-space-command/
BlueD954 ( talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello
Can the following be included as an update?
Thank you
Space force United States President Donald Trump summarized a six-point agenda that considerably expands the USA’s missile defense. This plan includes sensors based in space to spot hostile threats. Said sensors have the capability to track and target advanced threats that come from hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. President Trump presented the Missile Defense review at Pentagon on January 16, 2019 which called for research and investments to guarantee American security for the forthcoming decades. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/01/17/space-based-interceptors-and-drones-with-lasers-the-pentagons-missile-defense-review-wish-list-revealed/ The six-point plan includes the building of 20 new ground base missiles located at Fort Greely in Alaska and the creation of a missile shield that will protect all cities of the United States. https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/3443-anywhere-anytime-any-place-trump-lays-out-space-force-plans Trump also gave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a 100 percent commitment. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-touts-space-force-plans-pentagon-n959861
LOBOSKYJOJO ( talk) 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I removed Neil deGrasse Tyson from the listen of supporters, because I don't see any clear affirmation of support in either ref [2] [3]. Instead what he seems to be saying is the idea has been around for a long time so it's not a crazy idea. He himself suggested it way back, but at the time they decided it was better to just keep the air force in control. However no where does he say he agrees the time has now come to make a space force (or any similar sentiment). The closest is where he says that the space force should be given additional responsibilities but that's still a bit different. It's fairly common for people to suggest stuff that should happen if an idea is implemented, without necessarily saying that the idea should be implemented. And of course, there's nothing suggesting that the space force is necessary for the responsibilities anyway i.e. no where does he say we couldn't do this if we don't make a space force. (He also says that in general he doesn't think space force is going to significantly change what the military is doing, as it mostly is just stuff they are already doing.) Neil deGrasse Tyson is of course an astrophysicist, and while he has written and talked about military and space before, AFAIK he has limited military experience so he may reasonably feel he doesn't know enough to say which bureaucratic organisation style is best, especially without studying it in detail which he probably hasn't done recently. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I just overheard on the news that Trump was officially beginning the USSF. Could someone with far better research skills fix the page to reflect current events? ArmageddonAviation ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find one source for which the seal comes from. The link on the wikimedia file goes to pbs but there is no accompanying article. It does not follow any of the other logos and looks terrible but seemingly has been implemented in many wikipedia articles already. - AH ( talk) 03:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am enthusiastic about Space Force becoming a reality and tried to add the information I found while researching the topic. Eventually I was able to get the additional information onto the page and formatted correctly (the best I could) and then it disappeared almost immediately. Thinking I had done something wrong - perhaps pressed the wrong button or something technical I had missed, I went through the process several times. Then I got a message that I was engaging in a EDIT WAR! That was never my intention, it happened so fast I didn't realize it was a person who was deleting my edits immediately after I posted them. I am embarrassed, I feel very bad about the hours I spent trying to add to the Space Force entry, and wish I could get the money I donated to Wikipedia back. I am sorry. LCDR MMR/USNR over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrayson ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I am in touch with the Public Relations firm that represents our Space Force - in Arlington VA. and the Public Affairs office at (our) Space Force Headquarters in Colorado. Through them I have access to photographs cleared for publication, press releases, backgrounders, access to speeches by officials, and if arranged far enough in advance telephone interviews with spokespersons. I usually get paid for what I research and write so someone is going to have to tell me how to add successfully to (our) Space force Wikipedia Page if you want me to do this for free.
First thing is you have a page called "space force" which is what the US Space Force calls themselves. I recommend that someone who cares do something about the space force page so that when someone searches for information about (our) Space Force by typing in the search block "Space Force" they get to the US SPACE FORCE page. One way would be to change the name of the "Space Force" page to "Space Forces Of Earth" and that the search term "Space Force" take people directly to United States Space Force since that is what US citizens were probably meant when they typed in "space force", I know that is what I meant. Pgrayson ( talk) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, lets do one at a time. How many people need to agree to get the search term "space force" to turn up the US Space Force page? Pgrayson ( talk) 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, how about "Space Forces of the world" or "World Space Forces"? Pgrayson ( talk) 04:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You are missing one. They answer the phone saying "Space Force". I was searching for the Wikipedia page using the term "space force" and it took me (and how many other people) to a page that says it is the page for "Space Force" which is not the same page as US Space Force. I was about to leave the Wikipedia when I accidentally found the US Space Force page. Pgrayson ( talk) 04:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to see something interesting, Space Force is on social media and the conversation appears to be unrestricted. See what they call it. Pgrayson ( talk) 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Only one reason. I went to Wikipedia and put in "Space Force" and it took me to a page I did not want to be on. I am your typical unsophisticated user who would use Wikipedia more if it were more user friendly to me. Other unsophisticated / infrequent users like myself might use Wikipedia more often if it were more user friendly to them. How many users are you inadvertently turning away. Your search term statistics, which I don't have should tell you. How many of the people that searched the past two weeks did you send to the less impressive "space force" page when they really wanted to go the the other page? Pgrayson ( talk) 05:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Since only Garuda and I have responded here, I think it would be helpful to get more editors looking at the question. I will set up a request for comments and notify other editors to get additional input. Consensus will determine whether we change the title for Space force and redirect that term to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Per BilCat's request creating a discussion on a recent edit. Should the amount of funding for the Space Force as well as political context surrounding the creation of the Space Force be included in the article?- Splinemath ( talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There should be a mention about the insignia resembling the Starfleet logo in Star Trek. It's getting some press. Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course the international reaction of surprise and ridicule to the logo and inferable attitude of a US military branch deserves to be mentioned, as it fits well in the general esteem or lack thereof for the USA under the Trump presidency by the rest-of-the-world. The article definitely lacks a section about the views held by populations and governments all around the planet on the creation of this new operations service branch and the perceived analogies to literary, tv, and movie fiction. An open question about the logo might be whether CBS wishes to sue as they own the copyright to the Star Trek logo in all its variations. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The Space Force is organized as one of two [co-equal] military service branches within the Department of the Air Force, with the other service being the United States Air Force. Both services are overseen by the Secretary of the Air Force, who has overall responsibility for organizing, training, and equipping the Space Force and Air Force.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fejjisthemann ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be useful if some-one could give background on the seal, including history and an explanation of such things as the patterns of the stars. Are they constellations, numerological references, arbitrary patterns and numbers, or an artists' visual patterning based on intuition or design theory? The best I could find was an article about its similarity to the Star Trek badge and comments on alleged sources from NASA's insignia via Star Trek ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/star-trek-space-force-seal_n_5e2b6e92c5b6779e9c32b607 ) and a link found there-in ( https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/symbols-of-nasa.html ) but nothing explaining the star patterns. Kdammers ( talk) 05:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There is current debate over whether this article's infobox conforms to WP:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. To start
Please note that Garuda28 has authored 56.9% of this article as of the time of this post. For source see this.- Splinemath ( talk) 19:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The OP is apparently concerned about this series of edits that he made on January.5, which Garuda reverted only once. I reverted it again, with a request to open a discussion here, which the OP did. However, the OP has not responded there since that time. - BilCat ( talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Whoever can edit - per the Space Force website - https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2048114/14th-air-force-redesignated-as-space-operations-command - the acronym for Space Operations Command has a lower-case 'p' - SpOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.15 ( talk) 20:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This article in SpaceNews has the details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF in addition to the 5 space wings that transferred in December 2019. Might be helpful in improving the article. N2e ( talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
What's the reasoning behind the inclusion of that Kennedy quote in the green box? In the same speech, Kennedy said, "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace." The use of the Kennedy quote in this article appears to be intended as a snippet of backstory to the establishment of the US Space Force. However, Kennedy's speech at Rice stated a promise contrary to the concept of a US Space Force, and Kennedy himself did nothing to further the establishment of a US Space Force. If there is no good reason otherwise, I believe the use of his quotation is misleading, or at least questionable, and ought to be removed. Jaimalalatete ( talk) 11:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey the page still says the only rank in use is that of general, this needs to be updated. The current confirmed ranks in use are the ranks of Chief Master Sergeant, Second Lieutenant, and General. CPena02 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have just reverted Garuda28's removal of the 61st Air Base Group from the organisation of the USSF [5]. The 61st ABG runs LA Air Force Base in direct support of the Space and Missile Systems Center. I would kindly encourage Garuda28 to note that the Space Force will include not just operational organisations like the SpOC, but a whole number of less operational organisations, like SMSC and its base administrative organisation, and the men and women of the 61st ABG are just as much assigned to the USSF, and contribute, the same alongside the organisations that fly and drive satellites. Unless we have a WP:RELIABLE source that the 61 ABG has been inactivated or retitled, we should not make arbitrary changes (which also assume that the SMSC is an 'operational' organisation!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The direct antecedent of the Space Force, Air Force Space Command, was formed on September 1st, 1982 with responsibility for space warfare operations.[3] The National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 redesignated Air Force Space Command as the U.S. Space Force, and established it as an independent branch of the U.S. Armed Forces on December 20th, 2019. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder ( talk) 22:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link to the COMMONS category.
Please add in the SEE ALSO section, at the top, just below the
== See also ==
add
{{
commonscat}}
-- 65.94.170.207 ( talk) 09:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Added to "External links" section as recommended by
MOS:Layout. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add some info on the connection to this influential document. I found it interesting there's no mention of it considering it's directly out of the document from 2000. Much of this was implemented during the G.W. Bush years. Space Force didn't make it until now ..
Page 57 (68/90): https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses/page/n11/mode/2up/search/homeland .. ref: /info/en/?search=Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America's_Defenses
Tertiary7 ( talk) 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
As a footnote to the main topic, an additional subsection for space procurement should be made to preempt any existing infoboxes, Wikiprojects and or categories (exp.: 'Category : Companies Under Space Procurement with...") for the topic. This should not be confused with Space Trade. Habatchii ( talk) 11:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to ask contributing editors here who may have worked on this article whether or not there is a place for a sub-section describing the assets deployed by the US Space Force, such as the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6), and which has been written about in this recent article, dated 17 May 2020, entitled "United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches the Sixth Orbital Test Vehicle for the U.S. Space Force"? See article here. Is this something that should be mentioned, just as we would mention that US aircraft carriers are essential assets of the US Navy?-- Davidbena ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OCP is the Army's uniform 2605:6000:1805:43A5:201D:6BB1:8CF8:70C9 ( talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
If the Delta logo is public domain, why don't move it to Commons? Erick Soares3 ( talk) 22:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the discussion which has actually started at Talk:Buckley Garrison, regarding whether there is unbroken lineage between Buckley Garrison and the 460 SW, the new Delta pages may have to be merged with the previous Operations Groups. I would ask Garuda28 to kindly hold off creating new Delta pages for the immediate moment, because we have a page for Space Operations Command, the immediate higher headquarters, and every new piece of data can be placed there. It's a very short page. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible lineage conflicts
No word of lineage conflicts
HQ 14 AF --> SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) clearly share & continue lineage. I do not think there's any major issue or disagreement about that. Thankyou for alerting me to the fact that the releases imply SpOC (first formation) will be renamed. Would like to see that link. The problem as far as I can see is that there will be a field command (SpOC, second formation, Peterson), supervising all operating formations. That means SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) must be scheduled to do one of two things: (1) downgraded to a delta, in which case it will report to SpOC-second-formation, or, (2) disestablished. I cannot see any other alternatives. Very happy to hear thoughts!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Buckshot06:@ Lineagegeek:@ AFLBulawan: I think we may finally have gotten an answer to this question. Today at the SpOC standup (video: https://www.dvidshub.net/webcast/24904) when they inactivated the Fourteenth Air Force (the first SpOC) they mentioned that they're splitting the lineage and history - the aviation lineage (presumable the Flying Tigers and its time in the reserves) goes to the Air Force, while its space lineage (likely time as the Fourteenth Aerospace Force and certainly time under AFSPC after 1992) is going to the Space Force (specifically to SpOC West). I think this shows us the way forward. We'll likely have to partition the articles, so hypothetically with the 21st Space Wing do one page that's the 21st Space Wing and space only, and the other being the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing, with its aviation lineage and honors. As I've been working on these pages I've been doing it with that in mind, so for the vast majority of pages it should be a quick, clean slice once we get the details on split lineage for these units. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Maliepa: and @ Garuda28: I thought you both would be interested in this. The Space Force is about to get four new lieutenant generals who are being transferred from the Air Force and will serve as director of staff, deputy chiefs of space operations and commander of Space Operations Command, via 10 U.S.C. § 601 found HERE. They will also have their permanent ranks of major generals retained and transferred from the Air Force via 10 U.S.C. § 716 via HERE. Neovu79 ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Although the American date format is used for the citations, someone has changed them to the British format. These should obviously be fixed. I just repaired that same problem for the United States Space Command article, and have a feeling there may be many more such erroneous formats. -- Light show ( talk) 21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"In some topic areas, the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military, including US military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage."BilCat ( talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned? 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:A582:3BC3:7955:781A ( talk) 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Need to take out Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense and change to new Sec Def Christopher C Miller, in the current officers section, as of Nov. 9, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.73.147 ( talk) 20:50, November 9, 2020 (UTC)
the whole idea sounds horrendously costly, and would probably only be good for disabling the satellites of enemies, and i'm pretty sure we don't have any enemies with satellites (except maybe china). 2600:8805:2300:31D:F5EF:7C88:C91B:C9FB ( talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Criticism is judging the merits and faults of something, and is applied to all aspects of human endeavor, such as the arts, religion, commerce, politics, and war. Legitimate criticism of the Space Force by qualified sources helps maintain the neutral point view, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. @ Garuda28: The concept of a Space Force was around before Trump. How he pushed it through a compliant Congress is irrelevant to the fact it now exists. So most the criticism has to do with wasteful spending, the myth of organizational efficiency, and the power of the defense contractors over the budget. For example this statement from the Center for Defense Information:
President Trump’s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received a major boost during his tenure. A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money, it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space. [1]
- ^ Mandy Smithberger; William Hartung (November 30, 2020). "Shrinking the Pentagon". Project On Government Oversight. Retrieved December 1, 2020.
Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 12:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be some mention of this designation being temporary? [1] (unless it already is and I missed it) Just a thought. - wolf 04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. So I feel the "Mission" section has some issues.
I'd be in favor of deleting its sub-headings, and trimming the whole section down to a summary that is 2 paragraphs.
I have a feeling this idea won't be popular. I'm sure there's an editor that wrote all that and won't want it shortened/deleted. But I figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda28 you've just reverted this edit of mine. Can you tell me what "readiness" means? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
CSO has asked to change his staff name from OCSO to Space Staff. I have updated what I could, please make any changes you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash-Ashley ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the last paragraph "...while in reality it was first proposed by Democratic repetitive Jim Cooper and Republic Representative Mike Rogers in 2017.[122]" with two spelling mistakes that need to be corrected by someone who can edit.
73.254.192.168 ( talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change start_date = 20 December 201969.116.73.107 ( talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
(as an independent service) to start_date = 4 years, 6 months (as an independent service) like the other branchesI think that the rank insignia tables should probably be removed from this article. Since there is already a dedicated article linked to at the top of the section, having them displayed here provives nothing substantive and just makes the page longer in my opinion. Just wondering if this acceptable / is there a particular reason why these should be kept. Thanks, Terasail [✉] 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
From the version of the House NDAA. Section 6605 says "No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise available for fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense may be used to establish a military department or corps separate from or subordinate to the current military departments, including a Space Corps in the Department of the Air Force, or a similar such corps in any other military department." [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. It's also lacking a lot of details. Would be much better to remove the list of people who "support" and "oppose" and instead insert content that speaks on what the proposal is and on the history of the U.S. Air Force Space Command and related components. Jon Ivy ( talk) 19:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
When this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:United_States_Space_Force&oldid=846440445
Was started it simply read "United States Space Force" with no mention of a draft.
Now there's an entirely different article titled "United States Space Force" with no mention in the edits of the article I created.
Why is this? -- Bojackh ( talk) 20:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is very inaccurate and as noted doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. The US Navy is also involved in US space operations. The information showing that US space interests are currently handled by multiple entities is available yet not cited in this article. Please update this article to reflect the numerous entities, including the USAF, currently overseeing US space interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 ( talk • contribs)
It does not take a point of view to construct a fact based article. It takes research. NASA and SPACEX were both examples of non-DoD entities handling US space interests. Again, this article doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.127.224.132 ( talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F1B3:AFD9:5BC9:9516:1143:C194 ( talk) 10:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Very for-profit commercial solicitors keep adding USAF trash in the intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F178:EDD1:A4DC:437D:4C9D:AE93 ( talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts "In June 2017, the United States House Committee on Armed Services (HASC)" discusses a proposal to create a US Space Force, and then ends with a move to ban the creation of such a service. The following paragraph mentions a number of senior figures who have opposed "this proposal" or "this effort". It is not made clear whether the proposal or effort that they are opposing is the creation of the space force, or the banning of its creation.
190.236.206.160 ( talk) 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
190.236.206.160 ( talk) 15:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The rational section states that one of the reasons that the U.S. is developing a space force is because of the capability of China to launch ASAT missiles, however the source in question ( http://theweek.com/articles/779779/does-america-really-need-space-force) just states this in the context of what warfare in space would look like. I do not believe that this is an inherently inherently wrong conclusion, however the use of this source out of context appears to violate WP:SYN since it is making a conclusion that the article itself does not reach. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Would this article increase in quality if a "Criticisms" section was added? It seems that the "Space Force" has gotten some negative attention in the press, and this article still is just a proposal and the pros. It might benefit from a section along the lines of http://time.com/5316007/space-force-trump/. 50.39.171.4 ( talk) 22:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
since the WH released a memorandum for a Space Command?
BlueD954 ( talk) 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
https://spacenews.com/president-trump-issues-order-to-create-u-s-space-command/
BlueD954 ( talk) 07:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello
Can the following be included as an update?
Thank you
Space force United States President Donald Trump summarized a six-point agenda that considerably expands the USA’s missile defense. This plan includes sensors based in space to spot hostile threats. Said sensors have the capability to track and target advanced threats that come from hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles. President Trump presented the Missile Defense review at Pentagon on January 16, 2019 which called for research and investments to guarantee American security for the forthcoming decades. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2019/01/17/space-based-interceptors-and-drones-with-lasers-the-pentagons-missile-defense-review-wish-list-revealed/ The six-point plan includes the building of 20 new ground base missiles located at Fort Greely in Alaska and the creation of a missile shield that will protect all cities of the United States. https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/3443-anywhere-anytime-any-place-trump-lays-out-space-force-plans Trump also gave the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) a 100 percent commitment. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-touts-space-force-plans-pentagon-n959861
LOBOSKYJOJO ( talk) 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I removed Neil deGrasse Tyson from the listen of supporters, because I don't see any clear affirmation of support in either ref [2] [3]. Instead what he seems to be saying is the idea has been around for a long time so it's not a crazy idea. He himself suggested it way back, but at the time they decided it was better to just keep the air force in control. However no where does he say he agrees the time has now come to make a space force (or any similar sentiment). The closest is where he says that the space force should be given additional responsibilities but that's still a bit different. It's fairly common for people to suggest stuff that should happen if an idea is implemented, without necessarily saying that the idea should be implemented. And of course, there's nothing suggesting that the space force is necessary for the responsibilities anyway i.e. no where does he say we couldn't do this if we don't make a space force. (He also says that in general he doesn't think space force is going to significantly change what the military is doing, as it mostly is just stuff they are already doing.) Neil deGrasse Tyson is of course an astrophysicist, and while he has written and talked about military and space before, AFAIK he has limited military experience so he may reasonably feel he doesn't know enough to say which bureaucratic organisation style is best, especially without studying it in detail which he probably hasn't done recently. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I just overheard on the news that Trump was officially beginning the USSF. Could someone with far better research skills fix the page to reflect current events? ArmageddonAviation ( talk) 20:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find one source for which the seal comes from. The link on the wikimedia file goes to pbs but there is no accompanying article. It does not follow any of the other logos and looks terrible but seemingly has been implemented in many wikipedia articles already. - AH ( talk) 03:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am enthusiastic about Space Force becoming a reality and tried to add the information I found while researching the topic. Eventually I was able to get the additional information onto the page and formatted correctly (the best I could) and then it disappeared almost immediately. Thinking I had done something wrong - perhaps pressed the wrong button or something technical I had missed, I went through the process several times. Then I got a message that I was engaging in a EDIT WAR! That was never my intention, it happened so fast I didn't realize it was a person who was deleting my edits immediately after I posted them. I am embarrassed, I feel very bad about the hours I spent trying to add to the Space Force entry, and wish I could get the money I donated to Wikipedia back. I am sorry. LCDR MMR/USNR over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrayson ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I am in touch with the Public Relations firm that represents our Space Force - in Arlington VA. and the Public Affairs office at (our) Space Force Headquarters in Colorado. Through them I have access to photographs cleared for publication, press releases, backgrounders, access to speeches by officials, and if arranged far enough in advance telephone interviews with spokespersons. I usually get paid for what I research and write so someone is going to have to tell me how to add successfully to (our) Space force Wikipedia Page if you want me to do this for free.
First thing is you have a page called "space force" which is what the US Space Force calls themselves. I recommend that someone who cares do something about the space force page so that when someone searches for information about (our) Space Force by typing in the search block "Space Force" they get to the US SPACE FORCE page. One way would be to change the name of the "Space Force" page to "Space Forces Of Earth" and that the search term "Space Force" take people directly to United States Space Force since that is what US citizens were probably meant when they typed in "space force", I know that is what I meant. Pgrayson ( talk) 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, lets do one at a time. How many people need to agree to get the search term "space force" to turn up the US Space Force page? Pgrayson ( talk) 00:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, how about "Space Forces of the world" or "World Space Forces"? Pgrayson ( talk) 04:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
You are missing one. They answer the phone saying "Space Force". I was searching for the Wikipedia page using the term "space force" and it took me (and how many other people) to a page that says it is the page for "Space Force" which is not the same page as US Space Force. I was about to leave the Wikipedia when I accidentally found the US Space Force page. Pgrayson ( talk) 04:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
If you want to see something interesting, Space Force is on social media and the conversation appears to be unrestricted. See what they call it. Pgrayson ( talk) 04:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Only one reason. I went to Wikipedia and put in "Space Force" and it took me to a page I did not want to be on. I am your typical unsophisticated user who would use Wikipedia more if it were more user friendly to me. Other unsophisticated / infrequent users like myself might use Wikipedia more often if it were more user friendly to them. How many users are you inadvertently turning away. Your search term statistics, which I don't have should tell you. How many of the people that searched the past two weeks did you send to the less impressive "space force" page when they really wanted to go the the other page? Pgrayson ( talk) 05:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Since only Garuda and I have responded here, I think it would be helpful to get more editors looking at the question. I will set up a request for comments and notify other editors to get additional input. Consensus will determine whether we change the title for Space force and redirect that term to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Per BilCat's request creating a discussion on a recent edit. Should the amount of funding for the Space Force as well as political context surrounding the creation of the Space Force be included in the article?- Splinemath ( talk) 02:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
There should be a mention about the insignia resembling the Starfleet logo in Star Trek. It's getting some press. Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course the international reaction of surprise and ridicule to the logo and inferable attitude of a US military branch deserves to be mentioned, as it fits well in the general esteem or lack thereof for the USA under the Trump presidency by the rest-of-the-world. The article definitely lacks a section about the views held by populations and governments all around the planet on the creation of this new operations service branch and the perceived analogies to literary, tv, and movie fiction. An open question about the logo might be whether CBS wishes to sue as they own the copyright to the Star Trek logo in all its variations. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
The Space Force is organized as one of two [co-equal] military service branches within the Department of the Air Force, with the other service being the United States Air Force. Both services are overseen by the Secretary of the Air Force, who has overall responsibility for organizing, training, and equipping the Space Force and Air Force.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fejjisthemann ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be useful if some-one could give background on the seal, including history and an explanation of such things as the patterns of the stars. Are they constellations, numerological references, arbitrary patterns and numbers, or an artists' visual patterning based on intuition or design theory? The best I could find was an article about its similarity to the Star Trek badge and comments on alleged sources from NASA's insignia via Star Trek ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/star-trek-space-force-seal_n_5e2b6e92c5b6779e9c32b607 ) and a link found there-in ( https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/symbols-of-nasa.html ) but nothing explaining the star patterns. Kdammers ( talk) 05:57, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
There is current debate over whether this article's infobox conforms to WP:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:SEAOFBLUE. To start
Please note that Garuda28 has authored 56.9% of this article as of the time of this post. For source see this.- Splinemath ( talk) 19:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The OP is apparently concerned about this series of edits that he made on January.5, which Garuda reverted only once. I reverted it again, with a request to open a discussion here, which the OP did. However, the OP has not responded there since that time. - BilCat ( talk) 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Whoever can edit - per the Space Force website - https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2048114/14th-air-force-redesignated-as-space-operations-command - the acronym for Space Operations Command has a lower-case 'p' - SpOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.170.224.15 ( talk) 20:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
This article in SpaceNews has the details on the 23 USAF units that are transferring to USSF in addition to the 5 space wings that transferred in December 2019. Might be helpful in improving the article. N2e ( talk) 12:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
What's the reasoning behind the inclusion of that Kennedy quote in the green box? In the same speech, Kennedy said, "For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace." The use of the Kennedy quote in this article appears to be intended as a snippet of backstory to the establishment of the US Space Force. However, Kennedy's speech at Rice stated a promise contrary to the concept of a US Space Force, and Kennedy himself did nothing to further the establishment of a US Space Force. If there is no good reason otherwise, I believe the use of his quotation is misleading, or at least questionable, and ought to be removed. Jaimalalatete ( talk) 11:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey the page still says the only rank in use is that of general, this needs to be updated. The current confirmed ranks in use are the ranks of Chief Master Sergeant, Second Lieutenant, and General. CPena02 ( talk) 03:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have just reverted Garuda28's removal of the 61st Air Base Group from the organisation of the USSF [5]. The 61st ABG runs LA Air Force Base in direct support of the Space and Missile Systems Center. I would kindly encourage Garuda28 to note that the Space Force will include not just operational organisations like the SpOC, but a whole number of less operational organisations, like SMSC and its base administrative organisation, and the men and women of the 61st ABG are just as much assigned to the USSF, and contribute, the same alongside the organisations that fly and drive satellites. Unless we have a WP:RELIABLE source that the 61 ABG has been inactivated or retitled, we should not make arbitrary changes (which also assume that the SMSC is an 'operational' organisation!!) Buckshot06 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The direct antecedent of the Space Force, Air Force Space Command, was formed on September 1st, 1982 with responsibility for space warfare operations.[3] The National Defense Authorization Act for 2020 redesignated Air Force Space Command as the U.S. Space Force, and established it as an independent branch of the U.S. Armed Forces on December 20th, 2019. Helmuth von Moltke the Elder ( talk) 22:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please link to the COMMONS category.
Please add in the SEE ALSO section, at the top, just below the
== See also ==
add
{{
commonscat}}
-- 65.94.170.207 ( talk) 09:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Partly done: Added to "External links" section as recommended by
MOS:Layout. -
BilCat (
talk)
09:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add some info on the connection to this influential document. I found it interesting there's no mention of it considering it's directly out of the document from 2000. Much of this was implemented during the G.W. Bush years. Space Force didn't make it until now ..
Page 57 (68/90): https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses/page/n11/mode/2up/search/homeland .. ref: /info/en/?search=Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Rebuilding_America's_Defenses
Tertiary7 ( talk) 03:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
As a footnote to the main topic, an additional subsection for space procurement should be made to preempt any existing infoboxes, Wikiprojects and or categories (exp.: 'Category : Companies Under Space Procurement with...") for the topic. This should not be confused with Space Trade. Habatchii ( talk) 11:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to ask contributing editors here who may have worked on this article whether or not there is a place for a sub-section describing the assets deployed by the US Space Force, such as the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV-6), and which has been written about in this recent article, dated 17 May 2020, entitled "United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches the Sixth Orbital Test Vehicle for the U.S. Space Force"? See article here. Is this something that should be mentioned, just as we would mention that US aircraft carriers are essential assets of the US Navy?-- Davidbena ( talk) 22:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
OCP is the Army's uniform 2605:6000:1805:43A5:201D:6BB1:8CF8:70C9 ( talk) 03:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
If the Delta logo is public domain, why don't move it to Commons? Erick Soares3 ( talk) 22:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the discussion which has actually started at Talk:Buckley Garrison, regarding whether there is unbroken lineage between Buckley Garrison and the 460 SW, the new Delta pages may have to be merged with the previous Operations Groups. I would ask Garuda28 to kindly hold off creating new Delta pages for the immediate moment, because we have a page for Space Operations Command, the immediate higher headquarters, and every new piece of data can be placed there. It's a very short page. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Possible lineage conflicts
No word of lineage conflicts
HQ 14 AF --> SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) clearly share & continue lineage. I do not think there's any major issue or disagreement about that. Thankyou for alerting me to the fact that the releases imply SpOC (first formation) will be renamed. Would like to see that link. The problem as far as I can see is that there will be a field command (SpOC, second formation, Peterson), supervising all operating formations. That means SpOC (first formation, Vandenberg) must be scheduled to do one of two things: (1) downgraded to a delta, in which case it will report to SpOC-second-formation, or, (2) disestablished. I cannot see any other alternatives. Very happy to hear thoughts!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Buckshot06:@ Lineagegeek:@ AFLBulawan: I think we may finally have gotten an answer to this question. Today at the SpOC standup (video: https://www.dvidshub.net/webcast/24904) when they inactivated the Fourteenth Air Force (the first SpOC) they mentioned that they're splitting the lineage and history - the aviation lineage (presumable the Flying Tigers and its time in the reserves) goes to the Air Force, while its space lineage (likely time as the Fourteenth Aerospace Force and certainly time under AFSPC after 1992) is going to the Space Force (specifically to SpOC West). I think this shows us the way forward. We'll likely have to partition the articles, so hypothetically with the 21st Space Wing do one page that's the 21st Space Wing and space only, and the other being the 21st Tactical Fighter Wing, with its aviation lineage and honors. As I've been working on these pages I've been doing it with that in mind, so for the vast majority of pages it should be a quick, clean slice once we get the details on split lineage for these units. Garuda28 ( talk) 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Maliepa: and @ Garuda28: I thought you both would be interested in this. The Space Force is about to get four new lieutenant generals who are being transferred from the Air Force and will serve as director of staff, deputy chiefs of space operations and commander of Space Operations Command, via 10 U.S.C. § 601 found HERE. They will also have their permanent ranks of major generals retained and transferred from the Air Force via 10 U.S.C. § 716 via HERE. Neovu79 ( talk) 07:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Although the American date format is used for the citations, someone has changed them to the British format. These should obviously be fixed. I just repaired that same problem for the United States Space Command article, and have a feeling there may be many more such erroneous formats. -- Light show ( talk) 21:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
"In some topic areas, the customary format differs from the usual national one: for example, articles on the modern US military, including US military biographical articles, use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage."BilCat ( talk) 21:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Why is it not mentioned? 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:A582:3BC3:7955:781A ( talk) 21:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Need to take out Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense and change to new Sec Def Christopher C Miller, in the current officers section, as of Nov. 9, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.73.147 ( talk) 20:50, November 9, 2020 (UTC)
the whole idea sounds horrendously costly, and would probably only be good for disabling the satellites of enemies, and i'm pretty sure we don't have any enemies with satellites (except maybe china). 2600:8805:2300:31D:F5EF:7C88:C91B:C9FB ( talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Criticism is judging the merits and faults of something, and is applied to all aspects of human endeavor, such as the arts, religion, commerce, politics, and war. Legitimate criticism of the Space Force by qualified sources helps maintain the neutral point view, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. @ Garuda28: The concept of a Space Force was around before Trump. How he pushed it through a compliant Congress is irrelevant to the fact it now exists. So most the criticism has to do with wasteful spending, the myth of organizational efficiency, and the power of the defense contractors over the budget. For example this statement from the Center for Defense Information:
President Trump’s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received a major boost during his tenure. A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money, it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space. [1]
- ^ Mandy Smithberger; William Hartung (November 30, 2020). "Shrinking the Pentagon". Project On Government Oversight. Retrieved December 1, 2020.
Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 12:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be some mention of this designation being temporary? [1] (unless it already is and I missed it) Just a thought. - wolf 04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. So I feel the "Mission" section has some issues.
I'd be in favor of deleting its sub-headings, and trimming the whole section down to a summary that is 2 paragraphs.
I have a feeling this idea won't be popular. I'm sure there's an editor that wrote all that and won't want it shortened/deleted. But I figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Garuda28 you've just reverted this edit of mine. Can you tell me what "readiness" means? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
CSO has asked to change his staff name from OCSO to Space Staff. I have updated what I could, please make any changes you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash-Ashley ( talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a sentence in the last paragraph "...while in reality it was first proposed by Democratic repetitive Jim Cooper and Republic Representative Mike Rogers in 2017.[122]" with two spelling mistakes that need to be corrected by someone who can edit.
73.254.192.168 ( talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States Space Force has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change start_date = 20 December 201969.116.73.107 ( talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
(as an independent service) to start_date = 4 years, 6 months (as an independent service) like the other branchesI think that the rank insignia tables should probably be removed from this article. Since there is already a dedicated article linked to at the top of the section, having them displayed here provives nothing substantive and just makes the page longer in my opinion. Just wondering if this acceptable / is there a particular reason why these should be kept. Thanks, Terasail [✉] 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)