Template talk:Politics of outer space

Politics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Spaceflight Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Overall the US space policy section seems to be a little cluttered and I’m trying to think of ways to break it into subsections so it can be more readable. Other thing I’ve noticed is that some of the things mentioned in subcategories under presidential space policy cross administrations or don’t really fit with the one they’re in (Apollo program under Kennedy (ran way after him), Space Shuttle program under Nixon (didn’t come to fruition under him), and Space Force under Trump (Space Force Act will be tied to him, but Space Force likely won’t in long term, same parallels with how NASA Act and NASA treated under Ike). My thought is to split it into the following sections:

• Policy by President
• Civil space/NASA
• National security space/Space Force

I think it would dramatically reduce the clutter and enhance readability. Thoughts? Garuda28 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this point, Garuda. I agree that it's not always easy to read. I also agree on the difficulty of where to put longer-term programs. What I do like about the current structure is that it focuses on the politics and brings the policies of an administration together in all its aspects (general, security, civil, commercial). My concern is that if we split these up in three categories (and you could consider a 4th: commercial space),

• We lose the overview and interconnection. Just to show an example of interconnection to make clear what I mean: the Reagan administration's policy of Strategy of Technology was to overwhelm the USSR with technological advancements, forcing them to overspend to keep up, and hence ultimately ruining their economy. Initiatives such as the Strategic Defense Initiative and anti-satellite weapons (both "security") and the Space Station Freedom idea ("civil") belong to this policy, but the policy itself would belong to "policy". Another example is Trump, who, as part of his Make America Great Again philosophy, had a propensity for mediagenic initiatives that would show the restoration of American greatness; concerning space, this led to both the creation of the Space Force (security) as a new man-on-the-Moon program (Artemis; civil). If we split it into these three categories, this interconnection wouldn't be obvious.
• We would be making it more like a NASA and military program overview. At least for NASA, there's already a different template for that, and hence this would result not only in duplication but also in a loss of focus on politics and policies.

I am wondering whether we should just create a subsection per administration? And rename programs to e.g., "Launch of Apollo program"? I was WP:BOLD and gave it a first attempt. But I am certainly open to together look into and change this proposal. Morgengave (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea may be to change the current template to an umbrella template and make space policy sub-templates for US, USSR/Russia, and China, as each of these will likely have a lot of content. Morgengave (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding a commercial subsection could be beneficial actually. Hmm, I will have to think on some of those points, I like the idea of a condensed space policy template. My personal view is that it makes sense to detach things that cross administrations from specifically tie them to the space policies of specific presidents (space is one of the few areas that does this). For instance, wrt to the Space Force, Trump really tried to publicly tie it to MAGA, but the actual origin in Congress wasn’t with him or the administration at all (he actually threatened to vetoed it). The umbrella and sub template one could work well also. Garuda28 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually strike that – the way you reworded it takes care of my concerns! Garuda28 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]