From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon science.svg

This science related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



Do we want this as a silly article, or as something a little better? Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I'd ike to see it betterified along the lines of the recent BON's edit plus. 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
Silly is more interesting than that pointless BoN version I rolled back. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah but if there's anyone can give it some body as well as the snark it'd be better. 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC) SusanGContribsTalk
(ec) You know Human, rolling back someone's good faith edits is pretty rude. Even if that someone is just a lowly BoN, and therefore a worthless noone. You could've at least told them that their input is not wanted on their talk page. -- Nx / talk 17:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(EC) According to ARIN, that BoN was editing from the Department of Veterans Affairs. :)
Anyway, what would you want in a betterified article? --ZooGuard (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
There may be a few points about NASA we can bring up. Accusations of being ridiculously expensive for what it's worth, why they abandoned the Apollo program etc. etc. There's also a Bullshit! episode on NASA and I'd like a decent RW article to link to when I get round to reviewing it. And if Human's "silly is more interesting than that pointless BoN version I rolled back" holds true it should be moved to the funspace without hesitation. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 17:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The bon turned it into a useless one para. encyclopedia type article, and deleted two see alsos to interesting articles. I see no problem with adding more, some dry, some snarky. Nx, a one edit BoN probably isn't going to read "their" talk page. Anyway, the content is still in the history. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, why don't you block the IP while you're at it, they'll probably turn into a vandal anyway. -- Nx / talk 17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Cripes Nx, so an unregistered editor replaces the entire content of an article and deletes links to RW articles and we're supposed to ask someone's permission to revert it? If they turn up to discuss it, great. Why so snippy? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, another Human/Nx argument. Stop now. Anyway: sensiblise this and move the fun to Fun:Nasa, a laEnd times. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Why? Nothing wrong with having some snarkilism in our articles. Drying them out makes us boring... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The poor old Shuttle[edit]

There's a mostly correct summary of the Shuttle's history in the Observer. The currently commented-out Shuttle section under "Boondoggles" should be something like that when I finally get around to writing it. --ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion linkdump[edit]

Some research on public support for NASA: --ZooGuard (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


How long before 'the conspiracists' pick up on this? Anna Livia (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)