Jump to content

Talk:Cape Canaveral Space Force Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What?

[edit]

"It depends of" What is that supposed to mean? How does this relate to Kennedy Space Center? Rmhermen 20:02, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

Shorter names in Spaceport template

[edit]
Regarding the template {{Spaceport}} used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.
(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current uses and limitations

[edit]

According to the 1983 "National Register of Historic Places Inventory" (PDF)., there have been only 33 launch complexes have been built on the Cape with 7 remaining active. This reference can be found on page 2 of the pdf file.I'd be more than happy to edit the article myself, but being a newbie, I'd rather watch and learn first. Kentholke (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, synthesis

[edit]

@2601:4c1:c001:1878:ac:25cd:69d6:41a6: has come back with yet another dynamically allocated IPV6 address, continuing his nonsense that supposedly Cape Canaveral fit the requirements for NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center, which he tried to put into the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center page. This topic has been exhaustively dealt with at that article's talk page. He insists on trying to make sources say what they do not in fact say. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need online citation for siting

[edit]

A section reads "The capabilities of the Mercury Control Center were inadequate for the flight control needs of Gemini and Apollo, so NASA built an improved Mission Control Center in 1963, which it decided to locate at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Texas, rather than at Canaveral or at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland."

While it was true that KSC didn't have the facilities to monitor the flight control needs of an expanded program, the main reason for breaking up the system was hardly space, which KSC had plenty of, but rather of political support. Goodard had long been in the loop and stayed, for no particularly good technical reason. The political reason was two senatorial votes from Maryland, two from Florida for the launch center, two from Texas for JSC, and two from Louisiana for Michaud. This was well-known at the time but can only find post-moon landing stuff online. They needed to "spread the wealth" so no one state would be holding the bag when improvements were needed or the program went south (as it finally has). Lyndon Johnson's support in the Senate was essential; ergo, Houston. Student7 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is already well-cited with an online reference (Suddenly Tomorrow Came; I had the wrong chapter title but just corrected it.) Political reasons for the Mission Control move aren't specified, as are not the specific technical reasons; the source (Chapter 5) makes it sound like the emerging technology to communicate with other ground stations and satellite links made the specific location irrelevant.
But it sounds to me like you may be conflating the decision to build the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston with the decision to locate Mission Control there; is this true? Chapter 3 of the source goes into detail about the site selection process for MSC (from several other locations including President Kennedy's native Massachusetts, besides the four you list.) You can also read this in the JSC article (Site selection and Mission Control Center sections). NASA needed Congressional approval to build a new center in Houston, but the source makes it sound like this was not true for moving Mission Control (NASA's own discretion). You'll notice Mission Control isn't even mentioned until Chapter 5, making it sound like it was an afterthought rather than a major driver of where to locate the MSC. Therefore, according to the source, we may reasonably conclude that rebuilding Mission Control had nothing to do with the decision of where to build MSC.
Also, I don't understand your sentence, "Lyndon Johnson's support in the Senate was essential; ergo, Houston" in the context of history. When these decisions were made (1961), Johnson was no longer in the Senate; he had gone from Majority Leader (most politically powerful position in Congress) to Vice President (an office with the political power of a codfish, much to his chagrin.) JustinTime55 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the exact sequence, but things started to move minus the moon landing part, before Kennedy-Johnson took office. And Johnson was still influential, for Texas, anyway, after becoming VP. Wallops Island was used for some launches, for example. It never occurred to me that MSC & MC could be in two different places. I suppose they could. A redundancy they seem to have overlooked. Like Goddard in the middle, for no particular reason. The MC center was used for testing (both hardware and software) long prior to launch. I suppose they could have routed the data through Goddard! Student7 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Launch Complexes

[edit]

As discussed on Talk: Project Spaceflight, I will be creating a main page for list of launch complexes at Cape Canaveral. This is due to some of the individual pages about launch complexes having very little information beyond name, location, and number of launches. This isn't intended to replace the pages of the well-documented launch complexes, but rather to consolidate it into a table. I will be linking it as the "Main article" under the "Facilities" header. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we have that already: List of Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island launch sites? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Space force

[edit]

With the creation of the Space force these articles will have to be edited and renamed. Hektor (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 2020

[edit]

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station → Cape Canaveral Air Force Station – The initial RM appears to have been in error, as there are no major indications that Cape Canaveral has been renamed at this time. Special:Permalink/953778893#Proposed rename of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station articles. There has been no change of the name or indication of any renaming on the 45th Space Wing's website (Patrick.af.mil). The most recent news about the renaming that the 45th Space Wing has commented on is that it was delayed due to COVID-19 (https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2020/03/24/coronavirus-space-force-name-change-hold-space-coast/2906937001/). To add to this, there has been no renaming of Patrick AFB (held by the same wing). It seems that the source initially provided for the first RM incorrectly referred to it as a SFS, when it has not officially been renamed. Pinging users who discussed in the first RM: @Jadebenn:, @Soumya-8974:, @Ortizesp:, @Crazydaemon1:, @HAL333:. Also posting notifiaction at WP:SPACEFLIGHT and WP:MILHIST. Garuda28 (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should WP:BOLDly move it back to CCAFS for the time being if that's so. We'll just move it to CCFSFS once that's official. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jadebenn: That was actually my first inclination (and believe me, I tried), but I had no idea the policy implications it would have since it was initiated as a request move. After going down that rabbit hole I'd feel a lot more comfortable doing a RM. That being said, I'm not going to stand in anyone's way if they feel that is appropriate. Garuda28 (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to seriously stick my neck out and do it. I don't think anyone's going to object. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were the one who initiated the first RM, I don't think it will cause the same issues as when I did. Garuda28 (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should go ahead and remove this move request now. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Yeah, I’m pretty sure this has been resolved. Garuda28 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cape_Canaveral_Space_Force_Station&oldid=1196497356"