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

This question is about other space sciences (physics, weather, astronomy, etc), and does not directly pertain to space exploration as outlined in the FAQ.


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

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 ...


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 ...


5

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 ...


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

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 ...


4

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.


4

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.


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!


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

This question appears to be off-topic because it is ... requesting to provide information on behalf of a disassociated third party. Questions seeking product or service recommendations, or asking to provide legal advice of, about or on behalf of a third party we don't associate with, their products, services, and function are off-topic as they either ...


2

I really miss the "too localized" option since the last update to the closing system. I'm not sure how often it would apply for questions posted on our website in particular, but since we have the "too broad" option, it feels only natural to also have the "too localized" one: Too localized: This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is ...


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 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 ...


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

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 ...


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, ...


1

I initiated the closure, so I think I should post the original reasoning I gave, along with the points on which I feel convinced that the question in question should remain closed. I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is an astronomy question, specifically a celestial mechanics question. And our help center clearly states that ...


1

This question is about physics, and is not related to space exploration as defined in the FAQ.


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