* Spacex Operations and infrastructure (all the stuff about factories, production, pads, ships, barges, and other facilities and assets. Including core tracking/moving - they are operational assets now)
-SpaceX Falcon Family and Merlin (I think that now that reusability for F9 and FH is established, the Reusability section is somewhat redundant, plus it currently contains a mix of F9 and BFR and other things).
Working off suggestions and likes and my own personal opinion (counts for something ) I'm liking this. No need for a Starlink section (for now).SpaceX General.SpaceX Missions.SpaceX Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)SpaceX BFR - Earth to Deep Space (not enough for a SpaceX Mars standalone yet. BFR Earth to Earth and BFR Deep Space)SpaceX Speculation (Jury is out on that. Could it become a New Physics Section style hotbed of nonsense? Although I do like it as a relief valve for the other sections. Maybe call it something other than "Speculation"?)SpaceX Megathread (that'll fill up some more as we do the housekeeping and move some of the massive older threads).Will work on the framework over the weekend and then the work will begin where we move threads across where required. When we do we'll have a lead thread in the section to post links to threads to be moved, so we can all help out.But first, still time for thoughts.....
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 04/09/2018 05:58 pm-SpaceX Falcon Family and Merlin (I think that now that reusability for F9 and FH is established, the Reusability section is somewhat redundant, plus it currently contains a mix of F9 and BFR and other things).I agree with the above and think it's missing from your proposal Chris. Without it, there are a number of reusability threads (such as fairing re-use, S2 use etc) that'll end up going back to General and I wonder if General then becomes too large/unbalanced? There are plenty of Falcon threads to warrant their own section. That may reduce General somewhat, but don't see that as a bad thing.
Obviously the key thing is that people can find threads and are clear about where to start new ones (so we don't end up with duplicates in different sections).
Edit to add: expanding that last point - one danger with 'Speculation' as a separate section is that is can be hard to get consensus on where normal discussion/debate ends and speculation begins! For exanple, quite a lot about BFR is inherently speculative currently, as it's early days and not much detailed info is known/released. So which BFR threads belong in a BFR section and which in speculation? I'm all for separate speculative threads, but not sure about separate section.
I too vote against the speculation section, and to use clear titles.Someone said that 'too many sections cause confusion'. I disagree, the number isn't the real problem: it's all about title clarity.The titles of the sections should be unequivocal. Sections should not juxtapose and their name should set them apart without leaving room for interpretation A 'speculation' section would result in endless snarky, off-topic posts to move things there, discussions over what's speculation and what isn't etc.Another example is the 'Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)' section that Chris proposed. IMO this is too long and unclear. Wouldn't 'SpaceX Infrastructure' be shorter and clearer?Even ' BFR - Earth to Deep Space' should be shortened to 'SpaceX BFR' for the sake of clarity IMO. 'Earth to DS' doesn't really add anything after all.Also: this is a forum, we are here for discussion, not just for the news. Speculation is part of the discussion, and if you don't like speculation threads you can just avoid them. I don't see why we should have apartheids just because some can't stand the sight of a 'BFR SSTO' thread in the BFR section. I mean you are not forced to click on it...
Another example is the 'Facilities and Fleets (from pads to Mr. Stevens)' section that Chris proposed. IMO this is too long and unclear. Wouldn't 'SpaceX Infrastructure' be shorter and clearer?
Disagree. "Facilities and Fleets" is quite clear. By contrast, "Infrastructure" does not obviously include ships, and people looking for info on the fleet may not think to look under "infrastructure." That would be confusing, to me at least.
Quote from: Kabloona on 04/21/2018 01:57 pmDisagree. "Facilities and Fleets" is quite clear. By contrast, "Infrastructure" does not obviously include ships, and people looking for info on the fleet may not think to look under "infrastructure." That would be confusing, to me at least.Agree that infrastructure doesn't obviously include the recovery and support vessels. However, the way SpaceX is heading, "Fleets" could equally be misinterpreted as fleets of rockets. "SpaceX Infrastructure (land and sea)" might clarify that, but lacks brevity. Any other ideas?
If "SpaceX Facilities and Fleets" was coupled with a "SpaceX Vehicles and Spacecraft" section, it would be pretty clear which covered which topic.
Is the Megathreads section meant to be an archive for old threads? If so, it might be useful to call it 'Megathreads Archive' or similar.
Where will threads reside that are about setting up a SpaceX colony on Mars but aren't necessarily BFR focused? Still in the BFR section?
SpaceX Reusability