Talk:United States Space Force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Space Force article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States Space Force is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 9, 2023	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Space (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.SpaceWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceTemplate:WikiProject SpaceSpace articles

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Military history / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: National / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Space Force Act, sponsored by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers

Upon further research, I seem to have uncovered a problem. The lede states that the Space Force Act, sponsored by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers. The body doesn't support that. My research turns up that:

In 2017 Cooper and Rogers proposed the Space Corps, but that idea was nixed.
In February 2019, the Trump administration Department of Defense proposed to Congress its version of a Space Force [1]
In June 2019, both the House and the Senate had their own proposals for such an organisation [2], the House, under Cooper and Rogers, continued calling it the Space Corps [3], but the Senate called it the Space Force.
In July 2019, the House passed its 2020 NDA including the Space Corps, but the legislation did not advance to the Senate [4]
In June 2019, the Senate passed its version of the 2020 NDA including the Space Force, and the House passed the Senate's version in September 2019, and Trump signed it in December 2019 [5]

It is not clear that the Space Force Act was sponsored by Representatives Cooper and Rogers. It could have been sponsored by Senators. It could have been edited from the Trump administration Department of Defense. This needs to be cleared up. starship .paint (exalt) 06:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clear this up, point 4. is incorrect. The House NDAA did advance to the senate – but not for a floor vote. In the United States, Senate and House legislation that differ go to conference. That is what happened here, where both modified the legislation and the senate bill was modified by the HASC and SASC to create a single piece of legislation. When that happened, the Space Corps proposal from the house was adopted word for word and inserted into the senate legislation (which replaced the Senate's proposed Space Force, which was not a separate military branch). The only aspect that came over from the Senate's legislation was the name.

Furthermore it could not have been "edited from the Trump administration Department of Defense" because that's not how the legislative process works in the United States. They could propose legislation to individual congressmen, but they cannot unilaterally propose or edit legislative text.

If you would prefer changing "sponsored by" to "advocated for" I can support that, but the sources of their involvement are overwhelming. Garuda28 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda28: - (1) yes, "sponsored by" to "advocated for" - sure, at this point. (2) I don't think Space Corps proposal from the house was adopted word for word and inserted into the senate legislation. Compare law versus the House version. For example, the law discusses: ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR SPACE ACQUISITION AND INTEGRATION. In another example, the law discusses an "Acquisition Council". Does the House version do either of that? I don't think so. starship .paint (exalt) 02:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here to change the consensus wording of the RFC above. Please start a new RFC. BilCat (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a bureaucracy. When content is challenged on the basis of failing WP:V due to simply being untrue, it is not necessary to wait for an RfC result. I invite you to provide reliable sources to prove the simple statement that Space Force Act, sponsored by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers. starship .paint (exalt) 09:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSIS … differences between the legislative proposal submitted by the Department of Defense, the NDAA language from the Senate, and the accompanying language from the House of Representatives […] it is clear that the final NDAA language walked the line between the Senate and the House desires for the Space Force. While the decision on Title 10 authorities favored the House, many of the details of implementation favored the Senate, including the name of the new service and how space acquisition would be structured. starship .paint (exalt) 11:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World's first space force?

The non-US Space Force article states Russia was first in 1992. Their space force doesn't exist any more but it obviously makes the US not the first. 79.152.125.122 (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the articles for each agency, and their attached sources, (ensuring that they have them and they are up to date), to see where each agency falls into their respective government's hieracrchy, (as well as civilian vs military, etc.), and then if you feel this article is incorrect, then present your case, with supporting refs, and we'll go from there. - wolf 07:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Ranks

Should the discussion on why the Space Force used army/air force ranks versus naval officer rank structure be added? Jrpotts (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the Space Force, which was created from the Air Force Space Command, use naval ranks? Rcarter555 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest Uniformed Service

Both the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps page and the United States Space Force page claim to describe the smallest uniformed service of the United States. 35.142.185.91 (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Space Force page states that they are the smallest "armed service" which is true. The NOAA Corps is the smallest "uniformed service," which is also true. They are not an "armed service." Neovu79 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]