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 ...


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 ...


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 ...


5

I agree, the correct course of action should be: Is the question on topic here? Check the help center and meta. If you don't have time to check these, just say "I'm not sure this is a good fit here" and wait for feedback from others. If it's already been ruled off topic, then you can leave a comment saying it's off topic and why ("on topic ...


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.


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 ...


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

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 ...


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

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

(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

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. ...


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