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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
Before you create that new tag, stop and consider the following:
Note: The example questions used here are intentionally basic and should not be taken as a guideline for what is appropriate to ask on the site.
1. Is this a useful way to categorize the question?
For example, if your question is "Why do rockets sometimes explode?", then rockets and ...
Also see answers to Should I create a new tag?
Above all else, do no harm!
Before adding a new tag, we should perhaps do a little house cleaning, because if a new tag is simply created out of thin air, then we need to add it to all existing questions to which it applies. Rather than retagging as many as 200 questions, we should narrow the field.
We should ...
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 ...
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:
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.
There are multiple Artemis missions in the Artemis program. It looks like, if anything, we should have artemis-1, artemis-2, etc. Probably, best to just merge artemis-mission into artemis-program though, since it looks like it's been used for more than one mission.
The current tags follow the names of the relevant Wikipedia articles:
tiangong-1 refers to the first station, the single-module Tiangong-1.
tiangong-2 refers to the second station, Tiangong-2, similar in construction to Tiangong-1.
Wikipedia does have an article for Tiangong-3, which was cancelled in the design phase.
tiangong-space-station refers to the ...
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
Mods can intervene to do tag maintenance. There's only two questions on this tag, and both are about Mr. Steven (now Ms. Tree) specifically. I can see how renaming it fairing-recovery-vessel would allow more widespread adoption of the tag. I don't see sufficient justification to create sub-tags at this point. There's just not enough questions about each.
I'm not going to say either way just yet, but I'll explore things to consider.
Most of the questions that have the tag at the moment should not have it. So if we keep the tag and assume it's for "travel" in the tourism sense or in the sense of Travel SE but don't think that the tourism tag is sufficient, then we'd have to remove it from say three ...
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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 ...
Summary: Speculative concepts should require a large number of net positive scored questions prior to meriting a tag.
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 ...
Summary: Questions asking about an alternative solution to a problem in space exploration are on topic, but should be tagged with design-alternative.
Another alternative tag suggested by Tristan: design-alternative
Here's what I see that tag capturing:
Rocket flywheel instead of battery/generator (crazy idea)?
Is a ballistic blimp entry possible on this ...
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 ...
Rename columbia to shuttle-columbia, to allow space for a columbia-csm if needed.
Make ov-102 a synonym of shuttle-columbia.
Merge sts-107 into shuttle-columbia without synonymizing, just to get rid of the sts-107 tag. If we find that the tag keeps getting recreated, we can revisit making it a synonym.