Talk:Space advocacy

message: This article is essentially a POV directory of websites (see: What wikipedia is not. The "History" section is a wholly unreferenced essay and seems to be there as justification for the existance of the article.
Mdbrownmsw 13:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole thing needs a lot of rewriting and referencing - but that doesn't make the topic unencyclopedic. I think that rewriting and referencing should be done in lieu of deleting the article. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: I added the SETI Institute and The Planetary Society.  Their IRS 990 forms indicate they are well funded space advocacy organizations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.59.228.221 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of SETI Institute and The Planetary Society 

message: There is an extreme amount of space advocacy material that could be included in this article... I am a space advocate, but I'd need a lot of help tempering the stuff down to wikipedia standards.
Moonus111 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  woefully deficient 

message: For US based organizations it is easy to determine if the primary purpose is education or lobbying. Under IRS tax codes,  501c3 organizations are organized primarily to educate the public and  can only do some lobbying.  501c4, 527, and political action committees are organized primarily for lobbying.  I will move the 501c3 organizations to education unless anyone has an objection.Waters.Justin (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lobbying versus educating as the primary purpose of the organization

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Space advocacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070913144035/http://www.astronautix.com:80/lvfam/gerketry.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/gerketry.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on organizations "Actively involved" is missing what is arguably the most effective form of advocacy:  actually building and economically-demonstrating a business case for space access.
No mention of SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, or the many other smaller entities who are actually advancing space advocacy by privately-funded spaceflight technology development programs, advancing through many milestones (including flight), and in each case above, gaining a very large following by the broader public.  In my view, this is an oversight, as it seems to be the single factor that has most goosed up public interest in spaceflight technology since 2000.
Just a partial list of these widely-followed advancements are the:
* development and flight of several launch vehicle designs and maybe five new rocket engines since 2000 by SpaceX
* the rather massive multi-year, multi-phase privately-funded development program by SpaceX to develop reusable launch vehicle technology.  Now late in its high-altitude, high-velocity flight testing phase; with initial reflight of one of the half-dozen landed boosters slated for later in 2016.
* private development of several (substantial) rockets and capsules by Blue Origin, notably the New Shepard
* private development of several rocket engines (BE-1, BE-2, BE-3 and thrusters by Blue Origin, most notably the BE-4 which is late in ground testing now and has even been contracted for use by one of the large legacy and traditionally government-funded launch service provider companies (United Launch Alliance).
* Virgin Galactic's development of SpaceShipTwo; even though slow getting throught its test program, there has been a rather large public following of events with that program for more than ten years.
* others could be listed...
The point is, advocacy comes in many forms.  The article could be improved by also including some of the doing rather than merely theorizing and political-agitating forms of advocacy.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is missing the most effective advocacy in decades of advocacy:  actually ''doing'' something 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space advocacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132200351600/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Space advocacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132200351600/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/korolev.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I much enjoyed finding "Space Advocacy" addressed on WP. This is a new and important area so questions of notability and verification arise. There is little historical literature to cite for newly developing topics. I (and the editors) have difficulty with new topics which don't have a solid citation basis.
My personal interest in the topic is that I recently prepared a related article "[Valley Interstellar Workshop (TVIW)]", which does not meet reviewer's standards for reliable third-party citations (I have about 50 citations, but insufficient third-party. 
I welcome your suggestions, guidance, etc.
Thanks, and best regards.  David
--Fieldsde (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing Notability of "Space Advocacy" and developing topics on Wikipedia 

message: Dear fellow editors,
I wish to propose this article as a new sub-section. ThanksLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Article