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 ...


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

The relevant bit here isn't whether it's a weapon or not. It's whether the question has any relevance to space exploration. The question on how long till the ICBM hits is entirely off topic. It's also not a good question anyway - it has a couple of flawed assumptions, the time given was a rough guide anyway, and simple maths gives you the answer (as does ...


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

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 would say no. Do not substantially alter the question in this way. While it is tempting to be accommodating in situations like this, creating circumstances in which the question might magically change while other people are trying to answer increases the likelihood of running into problems where moderators have to intervene to clean things up, resulting ...


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 an oversight on my part. I realized that I had neglected to add the post notice earlier when I went back to remove all posts without sources.


2

That is a post notice on the question. Specifically, it is the "current event" notice, which is appended to a question when there have been recent developments in regards to the subject of the question that may have an impact on how accurate the initial answers may be. In other words, answers posted before information is gleaned from the new ...


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

I think that this question should be closed: Is streamline body shape essential for propagation in the vacuum of space? As it seems to be a duplicate of this: Are there enough stray gasses in space to justify streamlining a probe?


1

It seems to me that the consensus is that the older one is better, but we'll see how this answer gets voted. I think your question should be closed as a duplicate of the older one and no merge should occur. This will leave the Q&A at both places intact, and it will guide anyone who finds your question first to the other question for additional answers. ...


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