Jump to content

Talk:NewSpace

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

Help requested: Scope of the "List of private spaceflight companies" article

[edit]

There is an interesting, and much needed, discussion at Talk:List_of_private_spaceflight_companies#Clarification_of_the_list_title as to what the scope ought to be of that list, and whether that list ought to limit itself to only human spaceflight companies, or only NewSpace companies, or be as broad as to include Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and the other big MIC companies of both the US and Europe (and, presumably, wherever else they may be found). Please join in the conversation. N2e (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "NewSpace" or "Private Spaceflight" or ...

[edit]

... and just what does it mean, anyway.

On the Talk:Private spaceflight page, I have proposed that we attempt to engage a small group of interested editors in discussing and hashing out the issue of the scope of private space or privately-funded space or NewSpace. I think it will be important to develop a consensus on a rough set of criteria for the scope of related articles, guidelines for how we assess what fits within scope and what is out of scope. So I'm definitely onboard to help.

As an approach, I suggest we 1) discuss issues on Talk Pages first and attempt to develop consensus before making major changes any related articles, and 2) first figure out on which talk page we ought to engage the meta-discussion of the topic, before we go on later and improve other related articles. This talk page, Talk:NewSpace might be a very good place to do it, but I'm not sure. NewSpace, terminology is only a couple of years old and I don't know whether it has yet established terminological traction. Talk:Private spaceflight, is another possibility, but at least a couple of the editors interested in this topic (aremisasling and myself) believe "private" doesn't quite work any longer as it fails to make the rather critical distinction of the source of funds that would differentiate mongo-space-projects from Boeing, Arianespace and Lockheed Martin, all charter members of the MIC, from projects from Scaled Composites, XCOR Aerospace, Armadillo Aerospace, and many others who fund development with private moneys. A third possibility might be Talk:List of private spaceflight companies, where an interesting discussion took place recently in order to improve that article -- but in my view, a List of... article is not the best place to hash out scope for a terminology that will apply to a number of related Wikipedia articles. What do others think? N2e (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term NewSpace was created by three (Bob Werb, Chad Miller, and Bill Bolen) organizers of the early Space Frontier Foundation Conferences. Around 2007, the three made up the word due to a dislike of the current term in use, Alt.Space. "A lot of people had referred to it as "new space" on and off occasionally over the years..", "That's a phrase we could brand", "Lets cram the words together and capitalize both of them and lets see if we can get every body to start using NewSpace.", and "It will develop it's own definition." Youtube: The People of NewSpace: Bob Werb, part 1.

While "NewSpace" has typically been only used to refer to start ups, I don't think it necessarily needs to be limited to them. Perhaps it could define any company involved in space after a certain year (2000?), or potentially for future use, any company created during the decades 2000-20?0. Zveznet (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge from alt.space article

[edit]

Someone proposed a merge of alt.space article into this one. At this time, I take no position on the merits of that proposal. I just note here that in three months, I can find no editor that has added any discussion comment on the proposed merge, nor can I find anyplace where the proposer (User:Jatkins gave his/her rationale for the merge.

Therefore, if no discussion is started in the next week or so, I will plan to remove the merge tags. I will attempt to leave a comment on the proposer's Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't leave a rationale. [Proposer's rationale:] My reasoning was that alt.space and NewSpace seem to be used interchangeably (e.g. SpaceShipOne is described as being an example of alt.space at its article, while NewSpace mentions Scaled Composites, SS1's developer, as a "NewSpace" company). I can't find a distinction between the two, and neither it seems can Google, so I would suggest we merge into one or the other (probably this one, as NewSpace tends to be seen more frequently than alt.space, AFAIK). On a side note -- and I realize this isn't necessarily going to be the determining factor -- "NewSpace" OR "New Space" returns nearly 47 times more results than "alt.space" on Google. Thanks. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. Based on the similar material in both articles, which appear to be alternative terms for the same thing, I support the merger. If a reliable secondary source can be found to support the older usage (or "more popular older usage") of the term alt.space a decade or two ago, then I would also support the creation of a alt-space subsection within the History section of the NewSpace article. N2e (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the merge. alt.space is the older term from years ago when many advocates of an alternative to national space programs wanted to convey a message that we were different compared to advocates and companies supporting the old contractor paradigm. The term did not win the support of many of the people who were making that difference, so it fell into dis-use. The term NewSpace has managed to catch on with many involved, and many advocates have adopted it. The correct version avoids any white space between the two words. Alfred Differ (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completed the merge, as the articles covered much of the same ground, and the new term seems to have superseded the old. Anxietycello (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

[edit]

This article is a little focussed on the USA. True, most NewSpace activity is based within the USA, but not all. Do the FAA regulate global NewSpace activity? Do all NewSpace companies have the option to collaborate with NASA? Anxietycello (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the USA focus is due to the limited awareness of those contributing. There are no limitations within the community with respect to membership of which I am aware.
Regarding regulation, though, our FAA doesn't have any authority to regulate outside our borders except for one thing. As a US citizen I cannot escape their oversight with respect to spaceflight activity by leaving the country unless the country in which my activity occurs is a signatory nation on the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 AND is willing to state in writing that they take the liability for my actions the US agreed to take on behalf of its citizens. The FAA's licensing authority derives from the liability my country assumes for my activity and they can't avoid that just because I happen to be in another country or floating on a boat in the middle of the ocean.
In general the NewSpace companies may collaborate with NASA or other government agencies. The financial model used in the collaboration tends to get scrutinized by the peanut gallery, though. If it looks too much like the standard cost-plus model we begin to refer to them as OldSpace. Alfred Differ (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article could at least mention Rocket Lab, launching from New Zealand! And possibly OTRAG, although it predates today's newspace. And how about Copenhagen Suborbitals? Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

Cheers, I intend to create a German translation of this within de:Private Raumfahrt. I think more translations should follow. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on NewSpace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style

[edit]

While reading most of this article, I couldn't shake off the feeling of it being pretty much an essay or news article. There are huge sections with almost no relevant references and lots of apparent personal research/thoughts. The term is relatively new, but the concept is not, so references are sure to exist. For the time being, I think placing notes regarding style changes required would suffice. It is most noticeable in the Overview, where phrases like these are common:

"However, the psychographic distance between Old Space and NewSpace may be somewhat narrower than that; complicated by, for example, the fact that Wernher von Braun, the NASA engineer and chief architect behind the Saturn V and Apollo moon landing—thus a veritable icon of Old Space—was known as a consummate dreamer, as the titular theme of Michael J. Neufeld's biography "Von Braun: Dreamer of Space, Engineer of War" makes plain.[reference to book ISBN]"
"Like the romance of flight that has played an important and recurring role in the otherwise serious industrial development of aviation from its earliest days,[25] the primal driving forces of science fiction, fantasy, and creative imagination in nominally technically-austere space travel were thus well recognized and embraced by Old Space long before NewSpace came into being."

and History sections.

Which tags would be more appropriate is something I'm not sure right now, but will look into. Do other editors agree on the need for those notices?

Elideb (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I agree. This page definitely doesn't match the tone of Wikipedia. It should really be re-written to sound less like a press release.
--InvaderXan (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wtf is up with the italicized "animal spirits" and "mental blocks"? Cockneyite (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. The article is very superficial, being rather selective in what it mentions, and much of it read like opinions, or a publicity talk. I tried to remove some of the WP:NPOV editorializing. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NewSpace. 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) 19:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NewSpace&oldid=1202292159"