9

I agree, to take that wording literally would wipe out hundreds of interesting questions about space exploration history. (Unless, I guess, the questioner is writing a book about space exploration)


9

I don't think you're "wasting people's time" with that particular question, although I suppose people who are only interested in real-world space exploration and who consider games and fiction to be "waste of time" might disagree. While I somewhat understand the sentiment that comment likely came from,* I personally don't agree with it ...


7

Writing a meta question on this is a good call. If you have a problem with anything on the site, meta is the place to start. When moderators are appointed, they ought to be reading every new meta question (they will be notified of them, at least). A meta question also allows the community to weigh in on the issue. About the question. It does sound like ...


6

My concern in the OP was directed towards the specific issue of there being a question asked out of context and and then potentially answered out of context - which did indeed happen in the comments. e.g. in the OP there was no clue as to the test environment (town backyard vs. licensed club area in a desert) no context about the size of the rocket or ...


6

I am going to make a try at answering this, a couple of things to keep in mind when reading this answer. I have probably written the highest volume of way out there questions. So my views do not always represent the views of the community. I have probably written the highest volume of way out there questions. So I have had a lot of opportunity to see ...


6

I think fictitious subject matter clearly crosses a line. Our guideline for questions in the past has been that the fictive elements should be supporting information for the main question and not be part of the base question itself. Yes, this line can be fuzzy in certain creative hypothetical scenarios, such as ones I have been guilty of getting a little ...


6

I think there is some concern as to the scope of this site, and it is a reasonable concern. Because the tone we set for the questions might make a difference in attracting experts. We are very lucky to have quite a couple of either active or former personell in the industry or government agencies which regularly produce incredible answers. Its those kinds of ...


5

The practical problems bit was placed for Stack Overflow. It doesn't apply to every site. Very few questions on this site are facing real life problems, and that doesn't apply to this site.


5

I was one of the close-voters. My motivation for closing was that the Cybertruck is a terrestrial vehicle. It is not designed for Mars and there is no way (currently or in the near future) to get such a large vehicle to Mars. That makes it, in my opinion, a purely hypothetical, speculative, and frivolous question no added value. Hence I voted to close.


5

Thank you briligg, for posting this question. I admit that I was unaware of the shopping question issue, as I was unaware when someone previously asked about attitude control systems for cubesats. For the consumer electronics oriented stacexchanges I can easily see why these questions are problematic. Additionally to the reasons listed here, they show very ...


4

This answer is not intended to compete with @Puffin's answer but rather to supplement it. Issues of whether we as a community think questions about rocket guidance are "safe" aside, this starts getting dangerously close to export control issues, both under ITAR and EAR. It's important to note that ITAR and EAR do not necessarily prohibit building ...


4

I personally voted to close with the "unclear what you're asking" reason, but I guess others thought otherwise later, after your question was edited to read, in my opinion, substantially differently than what I thought (but wasn't sure) you wanted to ask initially. I tried working with you in the comments to further specify precisely what information you ...


4

Let's look at this question from a different angle than the shopping angle. Based on the parameters in the question, we're talking about the type of engine you would have on a model rocket not bound for space. That means this question is actually off topic because it is about model rockets, not space exploration. This is what our Help Center says on what ...


3

Yes, we should. Three of the five points in the main answer of How do we know the Apollo Moon landings are real? are directly applicable. The fourth applies as well, though it's written to address evidence for the Moon specifically. The questions are similar enough in spirit, and the main answer there is sufficient to address both. That said, the specific ...


3

I felt it was clearly off topic but was wary of mentioning it and earning a tumbril ride. So I added kerbal-space-program to my list of ignored tags. Time wasted, < 2 minutes. Time saved in future!


3

Sometimes, there's just not a community where a question is a good fit. We have had Dyson sphere questions here before, but we've never explicitly determined their topicality. It seems in this case, enough users see it as being just over the line that it ended up being closed. Sorry for the inconvenience!


3

There are many fields of science and engineering that overlap space exploration. Certainly chemistry is one, as is physics, biology, geology, etc. Chemistry is important to space exploration in more ways than just combustion chamber relations - there are the reactions that take place in fuel cells, in the shocks of reentry vehicles, in life support equipment,...


3

Preamble It can be frustrating at first to have a question shuttled around like this, and it may be more so for a relatively new user to Stack Exchange. The cure for that feeling is to ask more questions, either related to Dyson Spheres or to new related or unrelated topics. That can at least dilute the feeling. Give Stack Exchange a chance, it's a wonderful ...


2

There certainly are several reasons why that reason could be used. It's my understanding that the primary reason to close for "unclear what you are asking" is to give the asker a chance to fix the question. If the question remains open while it is ambiguous, then there may be answers written in the mean time that contradict the intent of the question. You ...


2

This should be fixed, not ignored. Keeping it closed as a duplicate does more harm than good. There is benefit to keeping duplicates around, while questions that are out of scope should eventually be deleted. If you don't have any intention to try and re-write the question to bring it into the scope then it should be closed under a different reason than "...


2

(Extended from comment.) I think the question boils down to: do we want to answer trivial questions or not. Both direction has some dangers. Disadvantages of making them off-topic: It would cause that many good-standing layman newbies would be expelled from the site. We will have much lower visit count. Furthermore, some like an "inner circle" ...


2

I understand the sentiment and concern but before adding more features to the site let's do our homework. What existing, documented problem that could not be addressed with existing tools would now be solved with the proposed solution? (the single example cited was easily and quickly handled with current tools) How many examples of this problem can be cited ...


2

This should be on topic. It's a bit borderline, but would fall under the realm of planetary science and orbital mechanics, both of which are valid subjects here. The same question would also be on topic at Physics, but that shouldn't preclude it from being on topic here as well.


2

It was previously ruled as on topic (technically ruled as "not strictly off topic"), but this is definitely one of those borderline cases. I think we need a new meta question about what is on/off topic in regards to celestial mechanics, and the result of that discussion needs to be a final determination on this question. If the new rules decided make it off ...


2

Chemical reactions should need to demonstrate that they are suitable for use in a rocket engine, before they can be considered on-topic here. Otherwise, you are literally opening up every possible chemical reaction for discussion. The reaction could end up being endothermic, or producing a black tarry deposit, and we've gained nothing by the question. ...


1

There has been a recent cluster of questions insinuating that Chinese/CNSA landings on Mars are fake. I want to make it clear that such questions are just as bad as those that allege that U.S./NASA efforts are not real. Conspiracy theories should not be tolerated here, regardless of which country is being accused.


1

I stopped participating in Space.SE three months ago, because another user said he would no longer answer my questions because he felt I already knew the answers. So if you don't do any research, some say your question doesn't belong here. But if you have done the research, your question also doesn't belong here. Damned if you don't, damned if you do. ...


1

There is no contradiction between upvotes and votes to close. It happened multiple times that I casted both an upvote and a vote to close on the same question. Upvoting is for good questions. A question can be interesting, well researched, and fun, but also off-topic. In this case I will upvote and vote to close. Perhaps not if it's blatantly off-topic, ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible