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".

[ChrisC]

I've dug up the things I've reported to Chris B over the past year or two.  Most of these are not about the NSF forum per se, but various NSF properties that are all needing some basic updates -- or simple rewrites so you don't have to keep updating them!  Maybe now's the time / opportunity to finally fix them

1.  On the NSF forum's main page, it describes the Blue Origin section as:  "Covering Blue Origin - from New Shephard to New Glenn and HLS development. Blue will eventually gain its own dedicated multi section area of the forum"  It's Shepard, of course ... (only one "h")

2.  NSF's Youtube profile / about info is perpetually out of date saying "now in it's 20th year".  Somebody has to update that every year.  Say "founded in 2005" or similar, not the year count, and be done forever.

3.  Exact same thing in NSF.com's about page.  Say 2005 and be done with it!

4.  Similarly, the NSF.com about page says this further down: "Starting in 2019, the NSF Youtube Channel already has over 800,000 subscribers."  You should rewrite that to something like "In 2019, NSF started a Youtube channel for both live and packaged video content; in 2024 that channel reached one million subscribers and it continues to grow." Resist the urge to give a more specific number like "1.42 million". Evergreen material, dude!

5.  On the NSF.com About page, the "NSF Team" section needs updating, especially re Jack and Adrian.

6.  At the bottom of NSF.com's About page, there's a a list of ways to support NSF, including L2 and Youtube subscriptions.  Add a short paragraph about tips.nasaspaceflight.com !  (and that site should state clearly that it's a one-time transaction)

7.  And finally, I say this every year: I would still love to set up a *periodic* donation to NSF via Patreon ... I explained why in 2023-2024 in a couple comments in this thread, but that thread has now been disappeared   (For those of you about to point me to all the other ways I can support NSF, again I explained this in the disappeared thread.  All of the methods are either one-time or involve a Youtube account.  OMG would you please take my money?! )

[deltaV]

Most content on NSF forums is news or live events so it could in theory be put in the "Live Event Section - Latest Space Flight News" section. Most content also could be put in a more specific section. So in practice the live event section contains a few threads that could have gone in another section (based on original poster's whim it seems) plus many threads that are miscellaneous and have no other home so they end up there. This is much different from what a newcomer would presumably expect from the section title and description. I don't see a point in having a dedicated live event section. So how about moving the content that could be in another section to the appropriate section and rename the live event section to "misc spaceflight" for the stuff that doesn't have a better home.

Edit: oops, I crossed out the last bit because there's already a "General Discussion" section so we don't need a new misc section. So maybe move the live event section content that doesn't have a better home to "General Discussion" and delete the live event section.

[deltaV]

The boundaries of the "Historical Spaceflight" section are unclear - lots of historical content appears in other sections. I've never seen anything moved to that section when programs are canceled and become historical. I suspect that the de facto definition of the historical section may be "stuff that happened before NSF was created", but if that's the case we should tell the users that (and give a specific date). Though some such content is in other sections, including the pre-RTF shuttle section.

[deltaV]

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.

Aside: if you're searching for non-L2 content you can work around the ineffective search by using a general-purpose search engine like Google or Bing. Just add "site:forum.nasaspaceflight.com" to your Google query (I don’t know Bing but it’s likely the same syntax). Of course this workaround isn't ideal since it’s a bit inconvenient, doesn’t work for L2 content, and isn't newbie-friendly. (You can configure Chrome and probably other browsers to make this easier, e.g. so you can type "nsf vulcan" in the address bar and it will search Google for "vulcan site:forum.nasaspaceflight.com". For Chrome you can do this in the settings for search engines, add a site search engine with name e.g. "NSF Forum", shortcut e.g. "nsf", URL "https://www.google.com/search?q=%s+site%3Aforum.nasaspaceflight.com".)

[kcrick]

Something else I've noticed in the forum are threads that are way over 100 pages long. For example, in the SpaceX Facilities and Fleets subsection, the SpaceX Texas Launch site Discussion and Updates Thread 12 is at 184 pages and was started in July 2021. And it's not just the SpaceX section. I believe I've seen it in other sections too, but I don't have a list made of them.

Maybe while moving stuff around new threads can be started for those that are too long?

Just a thought.

[deltaV]

Cross post of a years-old post that's still relevant:

Not sure if this has already been suggested but I feel it would be best to move the Shuttle sections to the bottom of the forum page. I don't see why it should have its current precedence over the Robotic Spacecraft and the International Spaceflight sections, which both have numerous active topics.

Yeah, it'll make me sob, but it's only right. We'll be doing another revamp soon and that'll be on the list.

[jebbo]

Is a revamp still planned?

I'm asking because the next Isar launch has been moved to "Other," which seems *very* odd. Would that mean *all* non-ESA European stuff would be there (RFA, Orbex, MaiaSpace, etc)? If not, what would the scheme be?

--- Tony

[PM3]

Is a revamp still planned?

I'm asking because the next Isar launch has been moved to "Other," which seems *very* odd. Would that mean *all* non-ESA European stuff would be there (RFA, Orbex, MaiaSpace, etc)? If not, what would the scheme be?

--- Tony

Handling of European spaceflight is a mess, but I think it is easy to fix. See my proposal here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57593.msg2751409#msg2751409

[eeergo]

A little over a week to the opening of its launch window: are we truly going to follow the first crewed lunar HSF mission of the XXI century, more than 53 years after the last one and over two decades in the making, in the 4th section of the third public subforum, and the third-to-last L2 section? Seems... inadequate

[catdlr]

A little over a week to the opening of its launch window: are we truly going to follow the first crewed lunar HSF mission of the XXI century, more than 53 years after the last one and over two decades in the making, in the 4th section of the third public subforum, and the third-to-last L2 section? Seems... inadequate

NSF Focus is now on Social Media and YouTube, where its thousands of fans have gone.  The forum is here to document the historic events from our more mature members' view.  Chris B, Phillip Sloss, eeergo (yes, you), PadRat, and Ford Mustang covered those major space launches when NSF started with the Shuttle era and have moved on. You have ChrisC and me now, as we try our best to cover this launch wherever the thread is located in the Forum.  Your help is much appreciated.

[eeergo]

A little over a week to the opening of its launch window: are we truly going to follow the first crewed lunar HSF mission of the XXI century, more than 53 years after the last one and over two decades in the making, in the 4th section of the third public subforum, and the third-to-last L2 section? Seems... inadequate

NSF Focus is now on Social Media and YouTube, where its thousands of fans have gone.  The forum is here to document the historic events from our more mature members' view.  Chris B, Phillip Sloss, eeergo (yes, you), and Ford Mustang covered those major space launches when NSF started with the Shuttle era and have moved on. You have ChrisC and me now, as we try our best to cover this launch wherever the thread is located in the Forum.  Your help is much appreciated.

I will certainly try to help if it's in my hands to do so, but my comment was about something different (as is the thread's topic): I understand the full rearrangement might take time, but the forum is not just a long-term archival tool, even if its aggregator heyday might have ceded way to (increasingly fragmented and with increasingly lower S/N ratios) video and networking platforms. There are many people that use it to follow events in near-real time and look for insider info.

For that reason, I think Artemis II should be given a priority location within the forum ASAP, both for long-time members and the undoubtedly many new ones who will come here (especially if there's any "event of interest" during the mission), and not be buried in a random subforum section that doesn't even refer to the program with its proper name ("HLV", "EM-1 etc"...), often eclipsed by idle talk on pet peeves about fanfic lunar surface concepts (HLS threads).

A quick-'n-dirty solution would be to move it to the "Live Events" section like in the old days of the forum (for example with STS) and be done with it, but of course many regulars will be confused by the missing familiar thread, newbies may end up looking at the "Artemis II" SLS/Orion threads... and just be mayhem. A more proper solution would be to take the chance to revamp the whole "SLS/Orion/Beyond LEO HSF - Constellation" catchall subforum.

[catdlr]

A little over a week to the opening of its launch window: are we truly going to follow the first crewed lunar HSF mission of the XXI century, more than 53 years after the last one and over two decades in the making, in the 4th section of the third public subforum, and the third-to-last L2 section? Seems... inadequate

A quick-'n-dirty solution would be to move it to the "Live Events" section like in the old days of the forum (for example with STS) and be done with it, but of course many regulars will be confused by the missing familiar thread, newbies may end up looking at the "Artemis II" SLS/Orion threads... and just be mayhem. A more proper solution would be to take the chance to revamp the whole "SLS/Orion/Beyond LEO HSF - Constellation" catchall subforum.

During the "Shuttle" program, such actions were undertaken; however, since then, new companies such as SpaceX (F9 and Starship), BO, and Rocket Lab have emerged, each with its own supporters who seek equal recognition. To prevent unjust criticism directed at one space company or launcher from another, it is essential to discuss these launches in their respective sections or threads.

[eeergo]

A little over a week to the opening of its launch window: are we truly going to follow the first crewed lunar HSF mission of the XXI century, more than 53 years after the last one and over two decades in the making, in the 4th section of the third public subforum, and the third-to-last L2 section? Seems... inadequate

A quick-'n-dirty solution would be to move it to the "Live Events" section like in the old days of the forum (for example with STS) and be done with it, but of course many regulars will be confused by the missing familiar thread, newbies may end up looking at the "Artemis II" SLS/Orion threads... and just be mayhem. A more proper solution would be to take the chance to revamp the whole "SLS/Orion/Beyond LEO HSF - Constellation" catchall subforum.

During the "Shuttle" program, such actions were undertaken; however, since then, new companies such as SpaceX (F9 and Starship), BO, and Rocket Lab have emerged, each with its own supporters who seek equal recognition. To prevent unjust criticism directed at one space company or launcher from another, it is essential to discuss these launches in their respective sections or threads.

Mh? We're talking about an HSF mission to the Moon here, not some legalistic discussion on who should get more visibility in general. If SpaceX, or RocketLab, or DodgyRocketeers Inc. were launching crew to the Moon, I'd say the same thing.

By the way, updating the headers and arrangements in the SLS etc subforum, my preferred solution, wouldn't entail any change in visibility compared to now...

[Chris Bergin]

We could post a redirect thread in the likes of Live Events to the Artemis sections?

Are we good on the Artemis main threads too? I think pre-launch we've been good. I would not be opposed to (like shuttle) Standalone Flight Day threads!

[eeergo]

We could post a redirect thread in the likes of Live Events to the Artemis sections?

Are we good on the Artemis main threads too? I think pre-launch we've been good. I would not be opposed to (like shuttle) Standalone Flight Day threads!

That would also work, IMHO. But I've been on this forum for 20 years, have followed Artemis milestones closely since its inception, and I still find it hard sometimes to find my way in the "SLS..." section - I can only imagine what it's like for someone who's not used to that subforum, let alone a newby.

A throwback to good ol' Flight Day threads would be delightful! And actually fitting for the occasion (as opposed to most if not all HSF missions since STS-135: lower profile flights with no continuous coverage, or long-duration ferries to ISS).

[Chris Bergin]

A refreshed title for Artemis' main forum section.

Going to do a standalone thread in Latest News to redirect folks who aren't big on scrolling downwards.