Talk:United States Space Force

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:

1. In 2017 Cooper and Rogers proposed the Space Corps, but that idea was nixed.
2. In February 2019, the Trump administration Department of Defense proposed to Congress its version of a Space Force [1]
3. 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.
4. In July 2019, the House passed its 2020 NDA including the Space Corps, but the legislation did not advance to the Senate [4]
5. 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)

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)

• @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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)