Starman is in the Roadster, so therefore the correct tag should be Roadster. I think Starman should be a synonym of Roadster.
According to Space-Track, the name is "TESLA ROADSTER/FALCON 9H", so it would seem Roadster should be the master tag.
Also, Horizons calls it "Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)", or when choosing it as an option "SpaceX ...
I concur with @PearsonArtPhoto's answer:
Jonathan McDowell has tweeted the Satellite Catalog. I noticed this in a retweet by the Air Force Space Command itself!
Therefore it's probably OK, this one time, to show it here.
McDowell's tweeted image, cropped:
Also, JPL's Horizons lists it as Roadster:
There are fuels that aren't [used as] propellants (RTGs, nuclear reactors,...) or they can have double use (as energy storage and/or as reaction mass, e.g. hydrogen in fuel cells and as fuel part of a bipropellant), and there are propellant components that aren't classified as fuels (e.g. oxidizers).
That said, our current use of them and also fuel ...
An aerobot is, by definition, a robot.
An aeroplane/aircraft is a super-set to mean craft in air.
My preference would be to keep the two separate. Yet it might be better if the call were taken in the context of the question by the person posing the question.
I don't see evidence at that link that Crew Dragon is the only official name of Dragon 2, and I still see other recent SpaceX pages using "Dragon 2". The way the community had been using the two different tags was that crew-dragon was for questions regarding the spacecraft's intended use as a human spaceflight craft, whereas dragon-v2 was inclusive of its ...
I disagree. Definition of regolith:
Regolith (/ˈrɛɡəlɪθ/)1 is a layer of loose, heterogeneous superficial deposits covering solid rock. It includes dust, soil, broken rock, and other related materials
(emphasis mine). Regolith is a superset of dust, so please don't treat them as synonyms.
It's hard to judge how many questions will make use of a particular tag in the future, but I have to say I tend to agree it might be slightly too specific, and it mightn't find many future uses. However, we do have other tags that further differentiate between various artificial satellite types, be it by their purpose / function, design / size, e.t.c. and ...
While I agree that avionics are electronics, I can see how we could use both as separate tags. Questions tagged as avionics might ask more about their function, while those tagged as electronics about their operation. For example, if I had a question about SEU (single event upset), it might not necessarily be about avionics alone. And if I ask about CAS (...
If I may suggest we also rather use singular instead of their plural versions, and not use the tag satellites at all (when you type "satellite", both available tags will show in the list to select the proper one from).
Have this post count as support to abolish the tag satellites and instead use more descriptive and less ambiguous tags in their ...
I was the one who added motion-sickness tag, I felt it's necessary to separate from space-sickness. Since the question where I used seems to be a duplicate, and not sure that anyone will use it again, the might be merged together.
However, I don't know what's the difference between them in space context. If there's no difference, merging is the obvious ...
Both tags are used on meta.stackoverflow and a few questions do fit better with off-topic than with scope. E.g., asking how a specific off-topic question could be fixed should probably not be tagged with scope but would be reasonable to tag with off-topic.
scope questions would include "Is this on-topic?"; off-topic questions might concern how off-topic ...
I would say that only health should be the only one used. For questions about medical treatment, medical-treatment should probably be used.
For questions tagged with psychology, we could probably change it to psychological-health
I'm thinking international-law should be for questions relating to laws that are not specifically for space, whereas space-law should be used for questions relating to laws that were specifically drafted for space.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty would be international-law
because it is also for fully ground based weaponry, not just space
Yeah, those descriptions as they stand now do suggest it's one and the same thing, and that should be corrected. They're not really the same though, launch pad is but one of the many launch site facilities. So I'm inclined to think that both tags should stay, they're not even synonymous in the sense of this site's use, but the launchpad tag does need a ...
For now, ESA still seems to use "ExoMars" as an official title. So I suggest we hold off on any changes.
If Rosalind Franklin becomes the common/accepted way to refer to the rover, then we may consider renaming the tag, but I don't think editing the text or titles of old questions is necessary.
I believe they should be made as synonyms. Thinking of previous arguments brought forward in the Use of the word “Space” in a tag, Should [space-law] be just [law]?, Can we make the [space-sickness] and [motion-sickness] tags synonyms?, and other similar threads, there seems to be the prevailing thought that the use of "space" in tags is synonymous with the ...
I'll throw in the other option:
They shouldn't be synonyms
Argument: space-sickness and motion-sickness both refer to two different phenomena, and one is sometimes the subset of the other. This isn't enough to justify making them synonyms.
I would say that motion-sickness should be merged into space-sickness - I can see motion sickness being a subset of space sickness, but not necessarily the other way around.
I don't have the requirements to make the change, and I don't think anyone really does on space-sickness, so we'll need some, uh, moderational assistance :)