Setting up for 2026 Forum Section Headers

[Chris Bergin]

Suggestions for forum subheaders and descriptions here.

A lot of new rockets etc.

[StraumliBlight]

The Superbird 9 mission was recently moved from SpaceX Falcon Missions Section to SpaceX Starship Program. Once Starship becomes operational, this section will be swamped with Starlink and tanker launches, crowding out the discussion threads.

Would it be better to split Starship topics into "SpaceX Starship Missions Section" and "SpaceX Starship Discussion"?

Alternatively the "SpaceX Falcon Missions Section" (which currently contains Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches) could become "SpaceX Missions Section" and move the operational launches here. As Falcon launches wind down, this would eventually become Starship only.

[Hobbes-22]

The European Launchers section is currently subtitled Ariane/Vega. Commercial European launcher projects end up either here or in Commercial Spaceflight General (which is intended for US companies).

See for example: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36636.msg2388515;topicseen#msg2388515

[russianhalo117]

The European Launchers section is currently subtitled Ariane/Vega. Commercial European launcher projects end up either here or in Commercial Spaceflight General (which is intended for US companies).

See for example: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36636.msg2388515;topicseen#msg2388515

To add the current subsection only covers a single launch base and AVIO leaving Arianespace but both sharing CSG conflict with the current setup. Making the European Launchers board universal and generic will allow all European countries launches schedules to be moved to a single European boards from several other current boards.

[aga]

The European Launchers section is currently subtitled Ariane/Vega. Commercial European launcher projects end up either here or in Commercial Spaceflight General (which is intended for US companies).

See for example: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36636.msg2388515;topicseen#msg2388515

To add the current subsection only covers a single launch base and AVIO leaving Arianespace but both sharing CSG conflict with the current setup. Making the European Launchers board universal and generic will allow all European countries launches schedules to be moved to a single European boards from several other current boards.

i would add my vote to this idea... rename the board to European Launchers and move all of them there... then we will have everything together and easy to find, etc

[jebbo]

As above, I think generalising "ESA Launchers - Ariane/Vega" to "European Launchers" is the best solution.

Technically, a slight issue as bits of Russia are in Europe, but hopefully still clear enough.

Also, the subtitle needs to be changed from "Updates and launch coverage of ESA unmanned launches" to something like "Updates and launch coverage for all European (except Russian) rockets." This allows for the possibility of future European crew launches and removes the Russian technicality.

A knock-on from this is that the subtitle for the "Other Launchers (Korean, Brazilian etc.)" section needs to be updated to remove UK, as last time I checked, we're still in Europe ;-)

The supersection where "European Launchers" lives should also be renamed from "International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others)" to "International Spaceflight (non-US)" or something similar. The bit in parentheses is too specific, e.g. there are already sections for India and Japan, and ESA is far too restrictive. [ There is probably an argument to be had in the longer term about whether international commercial providers get their own sections as they become important (like they do for the US) or whether they remain in their geographic sections. ]

The current "Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles" supersection title implies US, and should probably be reordered to read "US Commercial and Government Launch Vehicles" to make it explicit that the commercial bit is US only.

Also, the subtitle for "Indian Launchers" is currently ISRO-specific. Might be worth generalising as there will be commercial Indian launch providers

"Russian Launchers - Soyuz, Progress and Uncrewed" should probably become "Russian Launchers."

It might also be worth preparing for future space stations and renaming the "International Space Station" supersection to "Space Stations", and possibly moving the Tiangong stuff to a new section.

--- Tony

[eeergo]

Please, PLEASE fix the SLS/Orion/Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation catchall section. It's currently a mess, with entire obsolete subforums (mainly the "Missions to NEAs", which is located above the "Missions to the Moon" section a few weeks away from Artemis II!) and prehistoric wording.

In my opinion, a more rational and up-to-date structuring could be such:

ARTEMIS & BEYOND-LEO HSF

* Crewed Moon Missions: Artemis I, II, III and future missions
* Artemis Launch Vehicles: SLS+Orion and other prospective HLVs
*** Artemis infrastructure: Gateway, HLS Lunar Landers, LTVs and Logistics Modules, Base Modules...
* Crewed Mars Missions
* Historical BLEO HSF: Constellation/Ares, Missions to NEAs, SLS alternatives: SD HLVs and DIRECT's Jupiter, etc

Maybe (***) can be further subdivided into a more immediate-future section (Gateway, HLS, maybe logistics/LTVs) and a more speculative, farther-future section (Lunar Bases, BLEO Nuclear, Alternate Lunar Architectures and landers... maybe even blend in Crewed Mars Missions into it)

[jebbo]

Please, PLEASE fix the SLS/Orion/Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation catchall section.

Indeed. I ignored that one because it was such a mess, I didn't have any sensible suggestions :-)

--- Tony

[StraumliBlight]

Please, PLEASE fix the SLS/Orion/Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation catchall section.

Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids (HSF) "Section dedicated to HSF missions to NEAs" is currently discussing robotic mining missions.
Maybe it could be moved to the "Robotic Spacecraft" section and just renamed "Missions To The Near Earth Asteroids".

Speaking of "sections", a more consistent naming scheme could be used:

L2 Master Section → L2 Master
L2 SpaceX Section → L2 SpaceX
L2 Video Section → L2 Video
Live Event Section - Latest Space Flight News → Live Events - Latest Space Flight News
NSF Video Section → NSF Video
Polls Section → Polls
ISS Section → International Space Station (ISS)
In-Space Hardware Section → In-Space Hardware
SpaceX General Section → SpaceX General
SpaceX Falcon Missions Section → SpaceX Falcon Missions [or SpaceX Missions]
SpaceX Early Days Archive Section → SpaceX Early Days Archive
Sierra Space Dream Chaser Section → Sierra Space - Dream Chaser
Boeing Starliner (CST-100) Section → Boeing - Starliner (CST-100)
NGIS - Antares (MLV)/Cygnus Section → Northrop Grumman [add Eclipse rocket to description]

[AndrewM]

Here's a rough draft of a restructure I created last year. Definitely could use some tweaking still but was a pretty wide restructure.

[AmigaClone]

I would suggest the following changes:

International Space Station (ISS) (Supersection)
   * ISS Section
   * In-Space Hardware Section

 
changed to:

Space Stations. (Supersection)
   * International Space Station (ISS) Section
   * Tiangong Space Station (TSS) Section
   * Commercial Stations Section
   * In-Space Hardware Section

For the SpaceX supersection I would support the following new sections:

    * Starship Missions sections
    * Starlink Program
    * Starlink Missions

The "International Space Flight" Supersection be split into three parts"

Asian Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Chinese Spaceflight
    * Indian Spaceflight
    * Japanese Spaceflight
    * Russian Spaceflight
    * Other Asian Spaceflight

European Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Russian Spaceflight
    * ESA Spaceflight
    * Other European Spaceflight

Other International Spaceflight (Supersection)
    * Americas (Brazilian, Canadian,...)
    * Oceania (Australian)
    * Other

Note: For the Chinese and Russian sections I can see splitting them into "crewed" and uncrewed sections with the crewed sections including missions that directly support crewed missions (like the Progress missions).

Also, for the European Spaceflight supersection I would support splitting the ESA section into Ariane and Vega sections.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's a rough draft of a restructure I created last year. Definitely could use some tweaking still but was a pretty wide restructure.

I will note it will be mainly title section header wording updates and such, but that above looks rather tidy!

"Like" this post if you would be willing to gain mod status to help, as the main problem is the man-hours of literally moving threads from their parent section to a new section, which requires mod status. It's easy, just time-consuming. We get a team of three or four willing people and we can certainly do a big revamp. But at the very least we'll refresh the titles/descriptions as I can do that and this thread is already useful.

[TheKutKu]

It might also be worth preparing for future space stations and renaming the "International Space Station" supersection to "Space Stations", and possibly moving the Tiangong stuff to a new section.

--- Tony

Here's a rough draft of a restructure I created last year. Definitely could use some tweaking still but was a pretty wide restructure.

Space Stations. (Supersection)
   * International Space Station (ISS) Section
   * Tiangong Space Station (TSS) Section
   * Commercial Stations Section
   * In-Space Hardware Section

The "International Space Flight" Supersection be split into three parts"

Asian Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Chinese Spaceflight
    * Indian Spaceflight
    * Japanese Spaceflight
    * Other Asian Spaceflight

European Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Russian Spaceflight
    * ESA Spaceflight
    * Other European Spaceflight

Note: For the Chinese and Russian sections I can see splitting them into "crewed" and uncrewed sections with the crewed sections including missions that directly support crewed missions (like the Progress missions).

I am personally skeptical that there are enough discussion and threads to justify splitting Chinese Manned Spaceflight/Tiangong activities from Chinese uncrewed spaceflight, for now they represent only a new thread every several months, and even the Shenzhou 20 anomaly resulted in only half a dozen pages of discussions across three threads.
 
Although maybe it will change when the lunar program and commercial cargo program pick up speed, but that's a couple years away. And I do admit that it would work well for archival purpose to have all CMSA threads gathered in the same section (but maybe a master thread in the Chinese section could do that job).

I won't speak for crewed russian activities, although I would find it curious to gather Russian activities in the same Supersection as european ones, given the geopolitical context, they aren't closer to ESA than they are with ISRO or China, to the contrary.

[woods170]

I would suggest the following changes:

<snip>The "International Space Flight" Supersection be split into three parts"

Asian Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Chinese Spaceflight
    * Indian Spaceflight
    * Japanese Spaceflight
    * Other Asian Spaceflight

European Space Flight (Supersection)
    * Russian Spaceflight
    * ESA Spaceflight
    * Other European Spaceflight

n into Ariane and Vega sections.

No offense, but placing Russia in the list of European spaceflight is IMO incorrect. The vast majority of Russia, including most of its major spaceflight sites (Baikonur, Vostochny) is/are firmly located on the Asian continent."Russian spaceflight" should IMO therefore be part of the "Asian spaceflight" supersection.

[AmigaClone]

I am personally skeptical that there are enough discussion and threads to justify splitting Chinese Manned Spaceflight/Tiangong activities from Chinese uncrewed spaceflight, for now they represent only a new thread every several months, and even the Shenzhou 20 anomaly resulted in only half a dozen pages of discussions across three threads.
 
Although maybe it will change when the lunar program and commercial cargo program pick up speed, but that's a couple years away. And I do admit that it would work well for archival purpose to have all CMSA threads gathered in the same section (but maybe a master thread in the Chinese section could do that job).

I won't speak for crewed russian activities, although I would find it curious to gather Russian activities in the same Supersection as european ones, given the geopolitical context, they aren't closer to ESA than they are with ISRO or China, to the contrary.

No offense, but placing Russia in the list of European spaceflight is IMO incorrect. The vast majority of Russia, including most of its major spaceflight sites (Baikonur, Vostochny) is/are firmly located on the Asian continent."Russian spaceflight" should IMO therefore be part of the "Asian spaceflight" supersection.

I accept those arguments and have modified earlier my post in this topic.

[CharlieT]

I would not make any major changes. People are used to knowing the structure already.

[FreakySquirrel]

I would not make any major changes. People are used to knowing the structure already.

As a newer member of the forum, I actually find the current structure quite confusing. Since I’m not yet familiar with how everything is organized, I often have to rely on the search function to figure out where topics belong — and unfortunately the search isn’t very effective.

Because of that, I believe some level of reorganization would be beneficial, at least from a usability perspective for new users. In particular, the European section (which I’m most familiar with) feels unnecessarily hard to navigate and could really benefit from a clearer and more intuitive structure.

To me, discussions about whether Russia should be classified as European or Asian miss the point. What really matters is that the forum structure is intuitive and makes it easy to find relevant topics without having to guess or rely on search.

Based on my experience, creating many sub-categories with very detailed and specific descriptions tends to make a forum structure become outdated fairly quickly and can actually make navigation harder rather than easier. It also increases the workload for administrators, who then have to spend more time moving threads that end up being interpreted as “misplaced”.

I understand that long-time users are used to the current layout, but improving clarity and discoverability would likely make the forum more accessible for newcomers without significantly hurting experienced users.

[aga]

I understand that long-time users are used to the current layout, but improving clarity and discoverability would likely make the forum more accessible for newcomers without significantly hurting experienced users.

they aren't used to the current layout... at least not all of them... i am a long time user and IMO the current layout (esp. the commercial section and what is there and what is not there) is just chaotic and confusing...
and i am clearly not the only one, as some of the other users replying to this thread are here for a long time as well

[deltaV]

The Superbird 9 mission was recently moved from SpaceX Falcon Missions Section to SpaceX Starship Program. Once Starship becomes operational, this section will be swamped with Starlink and tanker launches, crowding out the discussion threads.

Would it be better to split Starship topics into "SpaceX Starship Missions Section" and "SpaceX Starship Discussion"?

Alternatively the "SpaceX Falcon Missions Section" (which currently contains Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches) could become "SpaceX Missions Section" and move the operational launches here. As Falcon launches wind down, this would eventually become Starship only.

Yes, I think splitting Starship missions into a separate section from everything else Starship-related makes sense.

I think we should put Falcon and Starship missions in different sections since many more people will be interested in the first few dozen Starship launches than similar Falcon launches.

One thing I find suboptimal about the SpaceX Falcon Missions section is there's a mix of stuff I don't care about (e.g. routine weather forecasts and delays for Starlink missions) and stuff I do care about, e.g. crewed missions, NASA science missions, and missions with failures or close calls. To help this, maybe Falcon Starlink missions should have their own section, or alternatively Falcon commercial Earth-orbiting uncrewed missions should have their own section. Maybe Starship could have a similar breakdown, plus eventually a separate section for Starship propellant tanker missions.

So I would have the following new SpaceX sections:
-Falcon commercial Earth-orbiting uncrewed missions
-Other Falcon missions
-Starship commercial Earth-orbiting uncrewed missions
-Starship propellant tanker missions (only create this once there are a dozen of them)
-Other Starship missions
-Starship not-missions
Unchanged SpaceX sections:
-SpaceX General Section
-SpaceX Facilities and Fleets
-SpaceX Reusability
-SpaceX Early Days Archive Section

[deltaV]

In theory there may be a clear distinction between the current sections "Commercial Space Flight General" and "Other US Launchers" but in practice I find it difficult to predict which of those two sections a thread will be in. One example is Stoke Space's main business is a launcher but their thread is in the former section. One possible solution would be to rename "Other US Launchers" to "Non-NASA US Government space", which is a large proportion of that section right now, and move the stuff that doesn't belong there any more to "Commercial Space Flight General".