SpaceX Acronyms and Nomenclature

[meekGee]

Besides, at least on the English speaking side, they are the only ones that have had one... 

So, ULA has RUD free engines?

Since the term was coined, I believe they have a RUD-free record, yes.

Not because the term doesn't apply to them, but because they've having a really good run.

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

Why would you care so much whether a general-purpose SpaceX originated term should or shouldn't go in it?

[Jim]

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

It can be combined with other one,  because aside from a few unique ones, the rest apply across the board.  There should be one list covering everything.  there Spacex doesn't need anymore preferential treatment.  BFR is an example.

[meekGee]

I don't understand why all the resistance.  You don't like the idea of a SpaceX acronym list, but one exists anyway.

It can be combined with other one,  because aside from a few unique ones, the rest apply across the board.  There should be one list covering everything.  there Spacex doesn't need anymore preferential treatment.  BFR is an example.

SpaceX threads generate a lot more readership and interest than the other ones, and it would be a good resource for people who are here to read these threads.

It is the same reason why SpaceX has its own section on the site organization.  Just count the page views.

For this reason, terms that are used often in SpaceX threads should go in.

There's nothing really more to it.

[rcoppola]

FWIW, and it's a very small thing in the grand scheme:

Personally, I'd prefer one unified list that has a specific SpaceX section for those items that are unique to them. For a few reasons:

1. It's more convenient and technically accurate.
2.Most importantly, it allows a much fuller context as to what makes SpaceX different (or similar) to other systems. Context is important to understand what has been. what's currently standard and what's unique to what and how SpaceX is doing something.

If we isolate out SpaceX from other systems, it actually does them and the newly interested a disservice by not highlighting these things within a broader industry context. IMO.

[meekGee]

FWIW, and it's a very small thing in the grand scheme:

Personally, I'd prefer one unified list that has a specific SpaceX section for those items that are unique to them. For a few reasons:

1. It's more convenient and technically accurate.
2.Most importantly, it allows a much fuller context as to what makes SpaceX different (or similar) to other systems. Context is important to understand what has been. what's currently standard and what's unique to what and how SpaceX is doing something.

If we isolate out SpaceX from other systems, it actually does them and the newly interested a disservice by not highlighting these things within a broader industry context. IMO.

That's a fair proposal.

The thing is, the general list is A) a PDF, and B) is 310 pages long.

It's not as immediately accessible and updatable as the simple format of an acronym thread with a flat first post.

If someone wants to maintain the much more comprehensive list, broken down to sections by provider, then it's a worthy project.

For now, the leading post of the SpaceX Acronym list points to such a comprehensive list, which is at a minimum good enough.

[arachnitect]

I think there's a place for a sticky "Spacex Glossary" so people can figure out what "MCT" or whatever generally refers to without wading through a huge speculation thread.

But general acronyms and terms should be left to google or the general acronym list.

The schism between the spacex section and the rest of the forum is already wide enough, no need to drive the wedge deeper.

[MP99]

I think there's a place for a sticky "Spacex Glossary"...

Can it also include notes re incorrect usages, such as "Spacex"? (Big grin smiley.)

Cheers, Martin

[AJW]

Can't this be done as a browser plug-in where if you leave your cursor on a term it pops up a definition and possibly links?  Much faster than going back and forth to an acronym list.

[meekGee]

I think arachnitect's notion defines what the metric is for inclusion in this section.

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

It doesn't really matter if the term is SpaceX-only or not.  A simple forum search for the term, limited to the SpaceX threads, should tell us whether it should be on the front Acronym/nomenclature page.


 

[Lar]

Some overlap is fine in my view.

[Jim]

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

And the orientation should be generic and not slanted towards Spacex, because this site is not Spacex indoctrination.

[Lar]

It's simply "is this a term used often on the SpaceX threads".  It's for people who are new here and need orientation, and there's plenty of those joining every day.

And the orientation should be generic and not slanted towards Spacex, because this site is not Spacex indoctrination.

If we have two or more of these resources, one generic, one SpaceX,  one ULA, one Ariane, etc then each one will have a slant... and that will be OK.

So far I am seeing a consensus (however weak) that multiple threads/resources are at least harmless, if not actually beneficial. That doesn't mean everyone agrees. But that there is possibly such a consensus.

(all this metadiscussion will be trimmed away once the consensus is clear)

[deruch]

SD: SuperDraco