The Observatory

ManishEarth

8:00 PM

Net will die in a minute. So will the bots

RhysW

@ManishEarth "how t organize them"

David Freitag

Hopefully my commands will not die with it :|

RhysW

my OCD no likey

David Freitag

Laters @ManishEarth, @RhysW off to class

RhysW

@DavidFreitag cya!

@ManishEarth you put my thoughts down very well! i almost wrote this post myself

called2voyage

8:22 PM

@ManishEarth I've added a comment with my thoughts.

TildalWave

@ManishEarth it would be interesting to define demarcation line between science and nonscience, and also human, exact and non-exact science for those bubbles... there's a few other unions in those groups that I'd be interested in for space in particular, but I can't think of a good representative graph for it... for example, part of our scope also touches chemistry, engineering, biology, medicine,... while Phy and Astro may less so

RhysW

@ManishEarth i also invaded your quiet place :P

TildalWave

I.e. I was thinking to make something similar and try to place each on a graph divided in three parts (human, exact, non-exact) with each part going slightly over the other too... actually, hmm.....

it could look like this:

lack of words... moar coffee LOL

called2voyage

My main concern about merging Space and Astro is that even though Space has broadened in scope it has stayed pretty focused on its overall goal of matters of space exploration. If we brought in all the astro questions that aren't currently on topic in SpaceEx, I'm worried that Space would lose its focus.

RhysW

@called2voyage im sure @TildalWave would help us make our case

TildalWave

8:30 PM

@called2voyage I'm not supporting merger actually, I'd like Space stay almost exactly like it is

called2voyage

me too

I share Manish's concerns, but disagree with his conclusions.

If Astro dies, I don't want Space to inherit its baggage.

I am confused, however, as to why some (like UV-D) seem so opposed to being members of SpaceEx.

TildalWave

Well, the first problem I've seen is considering this site as evolved already in all the definitions... it isn't, far from it. Not by scope, not by community, and not by function.

RhysW

@TildalWave :(

called2voyage

I agree.

TildalWave

it's not really tit for tat

called2voyage

8:32 PM

I've said it on numerous occassions, Astro really needs to define itself.

Right now, people just seem to use it as a dumping ground for questions about space (besides spacecraft) and telescopes.

"Dumping ground" doesn't really fit the SE model.

TildalWave

@RhysW I didn't say I'm against Astro ;) Just that there should be a clear line between remote observational science and hands on exploration... from the purely management point of view, of course. They do complement each other, that's taken for granted.

called2voyage

@TildalWave That line is blurry in actuality though. UV-D would argue that Cassini is remote observational science.

TildalWave

@called2voyage it is both

called2voyage

right

thus "blurry"

TildalWave

yup :)

called2voyage

8:36 PM

so we need to make it clear that probe observation questions are acceptable on both sites

but questions about rovers and habitability probably fit better at Space

and ground observations are more the territory of this site

Looking at some of the top voted questions...

16

Q: Does the Sun rotate?

The planets rotate as an after effect of their creation, the dust clouds that compressed span as they did so and the inertia has kept it rotating ever since. It's fairly easy to prove that planetary bodies are rotating just by watching their features move across their respective horizons. Thi...

This is the intersection of Physics and Astro.

14

Q: How are black holes found?

Black holes have so much gravity that even light can't escape from them. If we can't see them, and the suck up all electromagnetic radiation, then how can we find them?

black-hole

This is a great Astro question.

14

Q: What is a parsec and how is it measured?

Astronomical units of measurement are mostly pretty straight-forward: Astronomical Units refer to the mean Earth-Sun distance (~150 million km or 93 million miles) Light years are the distance light travels in a year (~9.46 × 10^12 km) Another astronomical unit of measurement is the parsec. ...

distances parsec

Also a great Astro question, though somewhat simple.

14

Q: How do I calculate the inclination of an object with an amateur telescope?

Suppose I would like to calculate the inclination of a satellite from the ecliptic. Would it be possible to do this with an amateur telescope? How would I go about doing so?

inclination amateur

Clearly in the domain of Astro.

13

Q: Why is only one side of the Moon visible from Earth?

Why do we only ever see the same side of the moon? If this is to do with gravity are there any variables which mean we might one day see more than we have before?

moon orbit

Great Astro question.

TildalWave

@called2voyage It'll be hard to define a clear line when there isn't any. I think if we're to work good here then we better not invent hot water again... astronomy is what it is, it is a subset of physics. I think we need to work from there, not try to define a line between them (which would be impossible).

called2voyage

13

Q: What causes a star to become a pulsar?

What processes does a star undergo to become a pulsar? Does it take a very specific star with a certain set of qualities such as "Just the right mass, diameter, and composition," or is it a freak accident that certain stars live out their remaining life as a pulsar?

star pulsar

Intersection of Astro and physics

@TildalWave No I don't think we need a solid line (despite my earlier question in meta), I think we need to know what our core set is.

That is the Astro questions that are more strictly astro.

Those should be the bulk of our questions.

TildalWave

What we better work on, than to refine the scope, is to build a separate entity community-wise, that might be more appealing to your average astronomer than Phy.SE might be (I honestly don't know, actually)

called2voyage

and therein lies the problem Manish pointed out

We do need this to focus on astronomers.

But lots of people are focusing on astrophysics, and astrophysicists seem generally more comfortable at Physics.

TildalWave

I find Phy.SE a bit overwhelming and at times intimidating. But I still wish I actually had more time to be there, I have gained a lot of respect for some of the dwellers there during what... not a year even.

So if Astro is to make it, I guess we need folks that will make it what it will be. And in private beta, that might be impossible to achieve anyway.

called2voyage

8:46 PM

I think we can see from the highest voted questions that we know what kind of community we need, but we don't have a great volume of these types of questions that are geared to the community we want.

TildalWave

@called2voyage I think genesis questions belong better on Phy.SE... here, we should focus on observational science more, not so much on actually interpreting data... how to gather data, where to look for them, with what equipment, who has done what, how do we define / catalogue something, also discussing other astro societies, events, e.t.c.

called2voyage

@TildalWave I agree.

And I think that's evident in the ones I've marked as good astro questions above.

TildalWave

Obviously, there's gonna be a lot of interdisciplinarity, and I didn't want to exclude something, just thinking out loud really what we should focus on that Phy.SE can't provide. Phy.SE is for Astro.SE a bit like going on a consumer electronics show, but you're only interested in telescopes and CCD cameras that were stuffed in a small and less crowded section of the fair. But might have more specialized fairs of its own, too. No Steve Ballmer there, tho.

Transcript for