A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

sci.space.shenzou ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 10th 03, 06:13 AM
Thomas Former
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?




  #2  
Old October 10th 03, 09:15 AM
Paul Blay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

"Thomas Former" wrote ...
sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?


No.

Although I sometimes think we could do with a ...

sci.space.check-your-national-prejudices-at-the-door
  #3  
Old October 10th 03, 11:58 PM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?


"Thomas Former" wrote in message
...
sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?


We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz.







  #4  
Old October 11th 03, 10:26 AM
Thomas Former
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Former" wrote in message
...
sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?


We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz.



Right!!!


  #5  
Old October 11th 03, 10:27 PM
Abrigon Gusiq
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

how about

sci.space.spacecraft instead

or

sci.space.politics

or

sci.space.emerging-technology

Mike


Thomas Former wrote:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Former" wrote in message
...
sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?


We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz.


Right!!!

  #6  
Old October 12th 03, 01:45 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?


"Abrigon Gusiq" wrote in message
...
how about

sci.space.spacecraft instead


I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than
sci.space.shuttle.

And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a
sci.space.soyuz.



or

sci.space.politics

or

sci.space.emerging-technology

Mike


Thomas Former wrote:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

"Thomas Former" wrote in message
...
sci.space.shenzou

Do we need this new newsgroup?

We need it as much as we need sci.space.soyuz.


Right!!!



  #7  
Old October 12th 03, 09:51 AM
LooseChanj
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

On or about Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:45:39 GMT, Greg D. Moore (Strider) made the sensational claim that:
I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than
sci.space.shuttle.

And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a
sci.space.soyuz.


It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as
progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz,
and whatever might follow.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

  #8  
Old October 12th 03, 03:22 PM
Chuck Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:51:01 +0000, LooseChanj wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) said:


I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than
sci.space.shuttle.


And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a
sci.space.soyuz.


It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as
progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz,
and whatever might follow.


And sci.space.flash-in-the-pan for X-prize candidates?

And where do you put unmanned probe talk...?

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

  #9  
Old October 13th 03, 06:08 AM
Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to \s\
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:22:37 -0500, "Chuck Stewart" wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:51:01 +0000, LooseChanj wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) said:


I think perhaps sci.space.crewed might have been a better idea than
sci.space.shuttle.


And in case Thomas didn't get my sarcarm, no I don't hink we need a
sci.space.soyuz.


It's a tricky thing. I was thinking sci.space.craft for such things as
progress, ATV, etc. Possibly sci.space.craft.manned for OSP and Soyuz,
and whatever might follow.


And sci.space.flash-in-the-pan for X-prize candidates?

And where do you put unmanned probe talk...?


Years ago, before .history and .station, sci.space.shuttle seemed to be the
default group for everything that was not policy, tech, or science related.

There were suggestions for sci.space.manned and sci.space.unmanned, or even
sci.space.current.manned/.unmanned to go with a .history group. Then you could
have sci.space.manned.shuttle, sci.space.manned.station, along with maybe
something like sci.space.manned.other (though outside of shuttle and station
and the very recent Shenzou, what else is there right now that could go there?)

There really is no sci.space group for "everything else". I'm of the opinion
that .policy should have been renamed to .misc long ago to both make it conform
to usenet standards and make it clear where to put discussion for
non-tech/science/shuttle/history/station, but that's an argument for another
day....

Sci.space.moderated should never have been created. Those who voted for it
don't use it.

My ideal sci.space hierarchy:
sci.space.history
sci.space.manned.shuttle (formerly sci.space.shuttle)
sci.space.manned.station (formerly sci.space.station)
includes ATV, Progress, Soyuz, OSP, etc. that goes to the ISS
sci.space.misc (formerly sci.space.policy)
discussion of anything that doesn't fit in any of the other
groups - Shenzou, Galileo probe, X-prize, policy, OSP
development, etc.
sci.space.news
sci.space.science
sci.space.tech

  #10  
Old October 13th 03, 08:35 AM
Chris Bennetts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default sci.space.shenzou ?

Michael R. Grabois ... change $ to "s" wrote:

There really is no sci.space group for "everything else". I'm of the
opinion that .policy should have been renamed to .misc long ago to both
make it conform to usenet standards and make it clear where to put
discussion for non-tech/science/shuttle/history/station, but that's an
argument for another day....


I disagree. I think the big problem with a .misc group would be that a lot
of posts that should go to the other groups will end up there, rather than
the appropriate group. Not having a .misc group means that those posts go
to the right places (most of the time).

Sci.space.moderated should never have been created. Those who voted for it
don't use it.


At the time I voted, I was still in favour of it, but my enthusiasm was
weakening. Now I agree that it was a lousy idea. In hindsight, moderating
sci.space.shuttle may have been a better option, but I've found that
ruthlessly killfiling people works pretty well too. At the worst times,
though, killfiling wasn't as effective as it is now.

My ideal sci.space hierarchy:
sci.space.history
sci.space.manned.shuttle (formerly sci.space.shuttle)
sci.space.manned.station (formerly sci.space.station)
includes ATV, Progress, Soyuz, OSP, etc. that goes to the ISS
sci.space.misc (formerly sci.space.policy)
discussion of anything that doesn't fit in any of the other
groups - Shenzou, Galileo probe, X-prize, policy, OSP
development, etc.


If a .manned hierarchy is going to be created, then why not have a
..manned.history and a .manned.misc (for X-prize, OSP, Shenzou etc)? I don't
really think that a .manned hierarchy is worthwhile, especially if it is
only going to have a small number of groups.

...


I think what we have now serves well enough for the most part. I think that
the Chinese space program is the only thing that doesn't fit fairly well
into the existing hierarchy, but I think that we should avoid taking any
steps towards a new group until the Chinese program matures a bit. Right
now, the Chinese-related traffic doesn't justify a new group, and if China
settles down to flying space stations, then no new group will be needed at
all.

--Chris
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.