Talk:National Air and Space Museum

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordan.wallen, Sam.morrison15, Kasey Prevette.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i changed "the only lunar rock sample available to the public" to "one of the only...samples...". there's a moon rock at Space Center Houston, which is the public visitor's center next to Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. i'm not positive if there are any more public moon rocks out there, so i didn't specify "one of the two" or anything.

Changed the bell X1 and concorde to clarify[edit]

I changed the Bell X1 line to add "Powered level flight" as dating back to well before Chuck's flight several people have been recorded to go supersonic in dives, not many survived.

(Actually no one is KNOWN to have actually "gone supersonic and survived" before Yeager, much less have it recorded, though different stories do float around about American, British, and German pilots who MIGHT have done so.)

Also added the "Air France" to the Concorde line to clarify this is not the British Airways varient which has several notable diferences.

Also by the way the Concorde displayed is still intact with engines and un-modified. So many others of these now decomissioned aircraft are on display without engines and obvious cut-lines for transportation, to me these are no longer the real thing just a pile of scrap.

V2 - First human made object in space?[edit]

I thought I saw on the history channel that some shells from large Artillery pieces in World War I were able to leave the atmospehere. Would one of those be the first human made object in space instead? Mabey lets find out below!

The V-2_rocket article notes a trajectory peak of 80km. Information on the Paris gun of WWI notes a ceiling of 40km (mentioned as "highest prior to the V-2"), and I expect Germany's WWII-era large artillery pieces were similar. The artillery pieces might have been able to reach the V-2's operational ceiling if they could have been angled directly upwards. However, it would appear that the V-2's space claim results from post-war modifications (extra stages and the like) that boosted its ceiling to ~400km (I believe the internationally recognized limit is 100km). Lomn 18:42:04, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

image gallery[edit]

i'm going to remove the gallery tag, WP:IG: "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of galleries may be appropriate in Wikipedia articles where a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject" Accotink2 talk 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Article reassessed as C because it is not fully referenced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This article blurs the distinction between the "National Air and Space Museum" and its National Mall Building. It seems pretty clear from the Smithsonian's site that they use the term National Air and Space Museum to refer to the Mall, UHC, and Graber Facility. Given the present top hat, it seems I'm not the only one to notice that the status quo is confusing. Two solutions occur to me:

  1. Split the article and create an new one for specifics of the National Mall Building and collections. The present article is rewritten to cover non-building specific and early history, common issues and of course summarize and link to the facility specific articles.
  2. Rewrite this article so that there is a clear delineation. The National Mall Building specifics should be consolidated in their own section, after general topics and an introduction of the separate facilities.

Comments? --J Clear (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The blurred distinction accurately represents the way people think of NASM, in general. Perhaps there is no need to change the article in a radical manner. Of your two suggestions, #2 involves the least disruption. Suggestion #1 would have us create an article with an oddly disambiguated title, such as National Air and Space Museum (building), unpopular and hard to sell. Much of the focus of NASM, as far as the general public is concerned, is centered on the NASM Mall building, so combining the building and the museum articles reflects that perspective. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonderful place, but should the nation be specified[edit]

in the title? Midgley (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no other "National Air and Space Museum" in the world that I am aware of. See also National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places, National Institute of Standards and Technology, etc., etc., etc. —Diiscool (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]