Hot answers tagged

17

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 ...


12

Yes. space and exploration are now considered "intrinsic" tags (applicable to all questions) and cannot be used.


8

Looking at the top-voted questions (https://space.stackexchange.com/questions?sort=votes), very few of them have anything at all to do with "satellites." I don't see this as a tag intrinsic to the subjects discussed in this site. The term itself is a bit ambiguous (satellites can refer to either a man-made object or natural bodies that orbit another). The ...


7

If the word space is critical to understanding the concept, and is always included when discussing it, it should be included. The following is an incomplete list of such terms: space-shuttle deep-space space-station space-weather space-junk space-elevator spacesuits spacecraft-development If the word space is simply used as an adjective, but the meaning is ...


7

Whistling. No, there's only one tag, quest-joint-airlock. Walks away, still whistling.


7

Agreed. Might I add that we already have such tags as rockets / rocket, many more specific ones, and also the science tag (the latter also quite possibly superfluous and questions that use them should be checked if they could be re-tagged with more specific / descriptive ones). So yes, superfluous². I however propose synonymizing rocket-science with rockets ...


7

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:


7

Here's the thing about Python. It is an extremely popular choice for this type of thing because it has a bunch of great libraries, so I'm not sure we can avoid questions involving Python. As much as possible these questions should be about the actual implementation of space operations in Python and not the usage of a particular library, or the regular usage ...


7

This has been discussed extensively before, see Would a “Speculation” tag be useful?, and the linked questions and discussions. The preferred tag, in the cases where the question is on topic is design-alternative. It was selected over hypothetical-invention and hypothetical-scenario. hypothetical is even more ambiguous than the two. We don't want this tag.


6

I would (respectfully) disagree. Satellites are only a part of what we do here - a big part, sure, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily intrinsic. Just as Meta Stack Overflow has a few major, over-arching tags, and Stack Overflow itself has several, I would say we can keep it.


6

Make microgravity and zero-gravity synonyms.


6

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 ...


6

While I like the idea, I think you have the wrong five. There's a subreddit called "Explain Like I'm Five" exactly for this kind of thing. My only concern is that it would be a meta tag, which are a no-no. Or is it? I mean, consider the similarities to this and the Beginner tag that used to be on Stack Overflow. That being said, the target market of this ...


6

The first four use structure in a different way than the last. For the first four, I think the design tag would work well, or the more specific engine-design. For the last one, it is talking about structuring plans for an agency. I think the planning tag would be better there.


5

For convenience, let's first analyze what questions are currently tagged under technology, there's not too many of them: What happens to defunct lunar and Mars rovers? What technological barriers prevent humanity from creating a perpetual rover?mars the-moon rovers technology technology tag is unnecessary, already implied by rovers Has any CubeSat flown ...


5

Copy/Paste from Wikipedia isn't the preferred thing, and in fact, has been heavily abused on Stack Exchange as a whole. I will approve some entries from Wikipedia, but only if they can be shown to make this site better. Remember, the tag wikis are for our benefit, to help us first of all separate out what the purpose of the tag is, and secondly to give a ...


5

Yes, all of the law tags should just be law. Fundamentally, this isn't a site about law, and drawing any distinction between the various possibilities of law isn't going to bring a person here or not. Fundamentally, this is a site about space, and unless the word "space" is required to make sense of the word (space-junk, for instance), then it should be ...


5

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.


5

"Questions regarding the movements and interactions of astronomical bodies as it relates to spacecraft, their trajectories, and their maneuvers." Feel free to edit.


5

Suggestion #1: Create a soyuz-spacecraft tag and a soyuz-launcher tag. Merge and synonymize soyuz into soyuz-spacecraft. Retag some questions as soyuz-launcher as necessary. I think soyuz should be synonymous to soyuz-spacecraft because that is its most frequent use case. If someone is intending to tag a Soyuz launcher question, they or an editor should ...


5

Sometimes we have a problem that it's not clear where the line is. In this case, I would say it is rather clear that this has crossed the line. As you said, it is one question about something that Musk mentioned one time. That doesn't need a tag. Now, if we had a lot of questions about it, maybe we could justify needing a tag, even if it was just a concept. ...


5

When the question is about Python itself (a generic question on how to implement something, or about a programming error) it might be worth moving to Stack Overflow. On the other hand, if it's like "I have this script and the result looks wrong", or "I expected algorithm X from library Y to converge on problem Z, but instead I got this", perhaps it's worth ...


5

Another alternative tag suggested by Tristan: design-alternative Here's what I see that tag capturing: Rocket flywheel instead of battery/generator (crazy idea)? Could inflating while decending for rentry be possible? Could a spacecraft produce lift using sublimating material? Could a spacecraft be propelled by a 180 degree deflection of two charged ...


5

It looks like the names have become official, as they are referenced on the SpaceX website: This first private lunar passenger flight, featuring a fly-by of the Moon as part of a weeklong mission, will help fund development of SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR), an important step in enabling access for everyday people who dream of ...


4

The asker makes good points, and I don't see the need to split up the tag which will probably be 99% space-law and 1% international-law. I suggest we just use law.


4

Sure, I don't see why not, so I added rocket-equation to the question, creating a new tag. I also added a synonym tsiolkovsky-rocket-equation to it. Note that you can also create new tags yourself by simply typing it in the list of tags when editing or asking a new question, and is one of the site privileges granted to members during beta when reaching 150 ...


4

Setting the name "speculation" aside (which I've expressed my opinion of in the comments of JCRM's answer), my main issue with this idea is that it is too broad. "Could this work" applies to too many questions to really be much of a useful category. In fact, it would likely end up being pretty opinion-based, which sounds like a nightmare. Some possible ...


4

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.


4

I'm not sure that this is really necessary since "Lunar Module" is a pretty well understood name here, and any future spacecraft used for that purpose will probably have different names. If it does become an issue, we can always make a change at that point, but I don't think there's a need to do anything preemptively.


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