Author Topic: Space Policy read only decision  (Read 21736 times)

Offline wholmeswa

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #20 on: 02/15/2012 02:21 pm »

Look at the improved quality of the Space Policy section now. We even had 15 percent MORE views of that section (per page - long threads with 30 pages gain more views) compared to the FY12 rollout last year (not that it's a factor of the decision). That is in part due to the fact 90+ percent of people who come to this site only read the news pages or the forum threads. They are still visitors to this site and I have to consider them as much as people with a login on the forum.

Chris: As one of the "90+ percent"... thanks for keeping us in mind. That you care about those of us read-only types is what keeps NSF on my most frequently visited site list. Once in a while I look at other sites, and the foul language, character attacks and lack of civility reminds me of the excellent job done by your team that keeps me coming back.

Wayne

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #21 on: 02/15/2012 04:35 pm »
Chris,

I respect that it is your site, and I respect what you are trying to do.  The results will probably show to you that you are correct.  That said, as a non-L2 member I disagree with it.  On reading the budget thread today I had 2 questions (which were not arm waving or derogatory) which I was unable to ask in the context of the thread.  Since I dont feel my questions rise to the importance of their own dedicated thread elsewhere in the forum, I will have to hope that either they get asked by someone else or they are so unimportant that no one bothers to ask.

Now, Im a nobody in relation to many of those here, and I as much as I love the site I cant justify to myself the cost of L2, so in the end my opinion doesnt matter.  But I thought I would share it.  But thank you for providing the site...despite this small limitation on my ability to participate I will continue to join in here and learn as much as I can.  Even as non-L2, theres just no where else on the web to get the quality of info and discussion found here.

Chris King
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #22 on: 02/15/2012 04:41 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what does justify the expense of L2 to people?  There is soooo much on there and Chris can't subsidize it forever.

I very much understand financial hardships however, the cost is equivalent essentially to one pizza a month.  For those that do like to participate in constructive ways, I urge you all to reconsider.  I think you will find it worth the investment and, if not, cancel.  :)
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #23 on: 02/15/2012 04:41 pm »

Look at the improved quality of the Space Policy section now. We even had 15 percent MORE views of that section (per page - long threads with 30 pages gain more views) compared to the FY12 rollout last year (not that it's a factor of the decision). That is in part due to the fact 90+ percent of people who come to this site only read the news pages or the forum threads. They are still visitors to this site and I have to consider them as much as people with a login on the forum.

Chris: As one of the "90+ percent"... thanks for keeping us in mind. That you care about those of us read-only types is what keeps NSF on my most frequently visited site list. Once in a while I look at other sites, and the foul language, character attacks and lack of civility reminds me of the excellent job done by your team that keeps me coming back.

Wayne

Thanks Wayne, although you're one of the 10 percent as you're a logged in member, but I know what you mean! :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #24 on: 02/15/2012 04:48 pm »
Chris,

I respect that it is your site, and I respect what you are trying to do.  The results will probably show to you that you are correct.  That said, as a non-L2 member I disagree with it.  On reading the budget thread today I had 2 questions (which were not arm waving or derogatory) which I was unable to ask in the context of the thread.  Since I dont feel my questions rise to the importance of their own dedicated thread elsewhere in the forum, I will have to hope that either they get asked by someone else or they are so unimportant that no one bothers to ask.

Now, Im a nobody in relation to many of those here, and I as much as I love the site I cant justify to myself the cost of L2, so in the end my opinion doesnt matter.  But I thought I would share it.  But thank you for providing the site...despite this small limitation on my ability to participate I will continue to join in here and learn as much as I can.  Even as non-L2, theres just no where else on the web to get the quality of info and discussion found here.

Chris King

Tugging on the heart strings there Chris. Really nice post, but I can't just ignore the problem you note - as mentioned, I do care about providing to every single person who clicks on any part of this site. I will think of a way to find some solutions.

Hmmm, how about this? An all-singing/all-dancing one-off thread, fully moderated, on the Q&A secton called "General Space Policy Q&A" where people like you can get those questions off (even quoting from the Space Policy section)? A single thread would be easy to control by way of potential food fights.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #25 on: 02/15/2012 04:59 pm »
Chris,

I respect that it is your site, and I respect what you are trying to do.  The results will probably show to you that you are correct.  That said, as a non-L2 member I disagree with it.  On reading the budget thread today I had 2 questions (which were not arm waving or derogatory) which I was unable to ask in the context of the thread.  Since I dont feel my questions rise to the importance of their own dedicated thread elsewhere in the forum, I will have to hope that either they get asked by someone else or they are so unimportant that no one bothers to ask.

Now, Im a nobody in relation to many of those here, and I as much as I love the site I cant justify to myself the cost of L2, so in the end my opinion doesnt matter.  But I thought I would share it.  But thank you for providing the site...despite this small limitation on my ability to participate I will continue to join in here and learn as much as I can.  Even as non-L2, theres just no where else on the web to get the quality of info and discussion found here.

Chris King

Tugging on the heart strings there Chris. Really nice post, but I can't just ignore the problem you note - as mentioned, I do care about providing to every single person who clicks on any part of this site. I will think of a way to find some solutions.

Hmmm, how about this? An all-singing/all-dancing one-off thread, fully moderated, on the Q&A secton called "General Space Policy Q&A" where people like you can get those questions off (even quoting from the Space Policy section)? A single thread would be easy to control by way of potential food fights.
That could work, a single thread for Q&A on space policy.

But then there is the polls, so how about make them single post only, with a sister thread for discussion for L2 members, might work?

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #26 on: 02/15/2012 05:08 pm »

But then there is the polls, so how about make them single post only, with a sister thread for discussion for L2 members, might work?

Can't be done, the section is restricted to a membergroup. And back to the single thread idea - that would be an experiment, depending on interest.

I should also note that my first idea was to delete the Space Policy section and ban politics off the forum! It was getting that bad.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2012 05:10 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • US
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #27 on: 02/15/2012 10:19 pm »
I'm disappointed in the decision.

But I support the moderating here and I'm not privy to how noxious the Space Policy forum moderation was getting.  So I accept that it's a necessary evil.

My only regret is that I haven't finished my long response/sum up of the Jeff Greason Space Settlement Strategy thread.  But I guess the world will go on without it just fine, or I'll find a way to squeeze it in the budget or something.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #28 on: 02/15/2012 10:50 pm »
I figure I'll put my 2 cents in on this thread.


I agree completely with this decision, primarily because the only other option would have been to start banning people, and that generally does not work out as well.


However, I do hope that in the future things will calm down enough such that the Space Policy section might be re-opened to public comments.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #29 on: 02/15/2012 10:58 pm »
I can post in space policy (being L2) but not edit my posts there like I can elsewhere in the forum. Is this a technical oversight?

Oh! Yep, we'll sort that out. Just an option that Mark needs to click somewhere.

It would also be nice to have the possibility to delete a post. That option is also not available in the space policy forum. 

Offline John-H

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 200
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #30 on: 02/15/2012 11:35 pm »
So, as of today, the number of online forums where it's possible for me to discuss space policy issues with even semi-informed people has now gone from one to zero.  :-(
Are you joking ? Its the internet in 2012, you could have your own i-want-to-discuss-space-policy-with-semi-informed-people.blog.com or forum literally in 10 minutes. Your site, your rules.



Best post ever!!

Who are these guys and why do they want to post in this specific forum?

I really enjoy posts by people who know what they are talking about, so I avoid most political topics.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #31 on: 02/16/2012 12:34 am »
I can post in space policy (being L2) but not edit my posts there like I can elsewhere in the forum. Is this a technical oversight?

Oh! Yep, we'll sort that out. Just an option that Mark needs to click somewhere.

It would also be nice to have the possibility to delete a post. That option is also not available in the space policy forum. 

That's sorted now.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #32 on: 02/16/2012 12:36 am »

My only regret is that I haven't finished my long response/sum up of the Jeff Greason Space Settlement Strategy thread.  But I guess the world will go on without it just fine, or I'll find a way to squeeze it in the budget or something.

That's very specific to an ideal/concept, as opposed to a policy (I guess there's some policy involved, but it's not specific to that, so I'll move it to the general section). Regret mitigated!
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • US
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #33 on: 02/16/2012 04:06 pm »
I've noticed that any discussion that touches on politics, even tangentially, loses IQ points and gains emotional temperature during an election year.  It's too bad the Policy forum got out of hand, but I'm not that surprised.

Offline SF Doug

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Dreamer
  • Fremont, California
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #34 on: 02/19/2012 10:14 pm »
The destination of this space flight forum is clear, and the guidance system is nominal, properly shutting down engines that malfunction and use too much fuel.

What is space policy, anyway?

Is it rocket science? A rocket is basically engines, fuel, and guidance, and the structures to support them.  A rocket development program is similar; where funding is fuel and engineers are engines.  Could this mean policy is guidance?

Guidance requires four things:  sensors, a computer, actuators and a destination.  On a rocket, the sensors, computer and actuators are small, reliable, and use almost no fuel.  The destination is predetermined.

For one space exploration company, the development guidance system is small and reliable and requires only a few sandwiches for fuel.  In addition it provided all of the initial fuel for development, and is the turbopump for the engines.  However, the sensors are sometimes inaccurate, giving high values for speed and altitude.  The computer is fast, with innovative software, but with a slightly quirky interface. The ultimate destination is clear, and when the current guidance system is retired it intends to be converted to payload and delivered to Mars.

For a certain government agency, the first manned rocket destination was clear and the mission was accomplished, with both slide-rule and liquid-fueled engines performing brilliantly. The next project used more fuel than promised, but produced a beautiful rocket that successfully launched its own destinations. For the next generation projects, the destinations are not clear, and this is causing guidance system malfunctions. The guidance system has grown very large, consumes most of the fuel, and provides none.  The sensors and computers often give conflicting results and send opposing commands to the actuators, causing serious stress to the engines.  At times, the guidance system has reduced the effective ISP of the engines to low, even negative values and there have been gravity losses, sometimes 100%, due to low thrust.

Perhaps space policy is not rocket science.  Just as rockets are not equipped to design themselves, or decide their own trajectories, it appears that rocket companies are equipped to design the rocket, but not the mission.  A larger organization, perhaps as large as the planet of origin, with different skill sets, determines the mission.  The mathematics required to model the social, economic, and political systems (game theory, chaos theory and fuzzy logic) is far more complex than orbital mechanics or computational fluid dynamics.

It is as much of a mistake to use politics to dictate a rocket design, as it is to put a bureaucracy in a rocket to replace the guidance computer, or to try to use rocket science to win an election.

Nasaspaceflight.com has restricted posting on space policy discussions to paid members. The paid members are mostly engineers, not social scientists, but so far it seems they can discuss space policy rationally.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2012 04:13 pm by SF Doug »
Golf on Mars! (Beach balls and baseball bats? )

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #35 on: 07/15/2012 11:37 pm »
I've seen the stuff that passes for space policy discussion on other sites now 

People just going on and on with things like "when the SLS is dead..."

Yeah those aren't the type of people we want here.

They aren't going to pay to troll this site because they know it's unwelcome.

They liked it when they could do it for free and make the mods do all the work.

After venturing outside NSF and seeing what's out there I now consider this site to be a spaceflight safe haven. There are top news sites that just have their comment boxes spammed by nasty trolls and the people that abuse them for being nasty trolls.

The L2 sub fees are a small price to pay for the security of being able to have an opinion on policy matters without the nastiest of the spaceflight trolls in the world taking a crack at you.

The internet is a dirty place and it's not getting any better as more people get online especially from the mobile devices boom.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #36 on: 07/16/2012 12:44 am »
I've seen the stuff that passes for space policy discussion on other sites now 

People just going on and on with things like "when the SLS is dead..."

Yeah those aren't the type of people we want here.

They aren't going to pay to troll this site because they know it's unwelcome.


Wrong.

That is also my view
I am welcome and there are others with the same view on this site
I have posted my views on SLS and

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #37 on: 07/16/2012 12:52 am »
Yeah those aren't the type of people we want here.

The pronoun you are looking for is "I" not "we".

I've asked you before: kindly stop talking for others.

You don't represent me.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #38 on: 07/16/2012 12:54 am »
Yes Jim and you can articulate a sensible civilised argument.

What I'm talking about is the posts like :

Kill SLS and build Falcon Heavys SPACEX RULES WOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To QG sorry for the phrasing, will be careful with that in future didn't mean to offend you.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Space Policy read only decision
« Reply #39 on: 07/16/2012 02:35 am »
I'd like to see more readonly sections, especially if they could be limited to informed people through some criteria. That would be a service to readers of the site, including the not particularly informed ones like myself.

I know you can have notes and bios, but that does not prevent threads being derailed.

You could endlessly debate what informed is, but really any or multiple groups would be fine. Im sure L2 members are statistically more informed. You have to accept any group will contain a slant. The "Buddies to the moderator" criteria would be fine by me. Other people can talk on other forums.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1