Member Questions to Administrators, Matters related to the Forum |
Member Questions to Administrators, Matters related to the Forum |
Jan 14 2013, 01:54 AM
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 161 Joined: 12-August 12 From: Hillsborough, NJ Member No.: 6546 |
Thanks, Astro. I never knew I could do that (change the type of view) in a forum. Awesome!
-------------------- |
|
|
Jan 14 2013, 05:53 AM
Post
#32
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1592 Joined: 14-October 05 From: Vermont Member No.: 530 |
|
|
|
Feb 27 2013, 01:39 PM
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 29-December 05 From: NE Oh, USA Member No.: 627 |
Ok Admins…
I need to throw this at ya….. There was a conference earlier this month at UCLA on Mars Habitability: link below http://planets.ucla.edu/meetings/mars-habi...y-2013/program/ A lot of fascinating talks on possibility of transient liquid water near the surface. Alfred McEwen gives a 30 min update on Mars RSL (Recurring Slope Lineae). They are now identifying sites at Vallis Marineris that track the sun. Also updates on Phoenix results are presented. Chemistry of perchlorates. A 60 min talk by Aswhin Vasavada on early MSL results from Gale (this is as of 02/04/2013) which I have not had time to watch yet. Those are in the early sessions. I have thought of posting the link in the discussion thread on 'List of Evidence of Water on Mars'. But the later talks concentrate on the possibilities for current life on Mars. A taboo subject here. Hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Take a look and see what you think. I could just post links to the earlier sessions. Craig |
|
|
Feb 27 2013, 11:15 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 3108 Joined: 21-December 05 From: Canberra, Australia Member No.: 615 |
Craig,
Post the links to the speific papers, that fine. Even the conference link is OK. If we stopped every link to a space-related conference just because there might be a reference, paper or hallway chat about 'life' then we wouldn't have any links at all. Members are fully aware of the rules on discussion of this issue on UMSF. Referring to a conference where it might be one of a hundred topics does not breach that rule. One caveat would be if the conference was specific to that topic. |
|
|
Feb 28 2013, 11:53 AM
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 29-December 05 From: NE Oh, USA Member No.: 627 |
Thanks Astro0...
I will post ... |
|
|
Jun 25 2013, 05:48 AM
Post
#36
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4256 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
I noticed that the Oppy forum doesn't have a "fast reply" option, just the regular "add reply". Can someone include the "fast reply" option? Most other forums seem to include "fast reply".
Normally it wouldn't matter to me since I use "add reply", but I'm at a hotel and strangely the internet here doesn't allow me to use "add reply" - when I try nothing happens. "Fast reply", however, works fine. I'd like to post about Oppy! Thanks. |
|
|
Jun 25 2013, 08:24 AM
Post
#37
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
I'm discussing this with the other admins just to be certain there is no reason why this is not standard across all of the forums. if there is no reason for this ( and I'm not aware of any at this stage ) then we'll turn it on.
I'll get back to you shortly. |
|
|
Jun 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Post
#38
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
Fred - duly discussed, agreed and I've now made the changes.
There were about 10 sub-forums that had this turned off, I've changed it throughout to be consistently enabled. If I've missed any let me know. |
|
|
Apr 21 2014, 02:13 PM
Post
#39
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 40 Joined: 28-July 07 Member No.: 2984 |
Rosetta subforum Por favor? Should be a high volume topic here shortly (fingers crossed).
|
|
|
Apr 21 2014, 06:37 PM
Post
#40
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
Done!
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
May 29 2014, 11:20 PM
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 27-August 05 Member No.: 479 |
Done! I would like to do a new post, normally its in the conferences section but I was hoping you folks would consider allowing it to live in the future mars projects section instead, it would be a post about the mars 2020 lander landing site committee meeting of some weeks ago, I spent most of last weekend spending at least 12 hours reading through every PDF file that was presented at the mars 2020 landing site conference and I think I make a decently good post on the conference proceedings and perhaps in future there could be sub threads or a poll on each landing site candidate? years ago I spent alot of time reading up on landing site conferences of present missions and I see some new candidates not mentioned years ago, why? MRO and mars express and other new data informs us of new possibility for landing sites http://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/index.cfm first thread has been covered here already but not in great detail, http://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/201...n%205-13-14.pdf so my first proposed thread would include, new proposed sites will subject to orbital imaging camping http://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/201...straints_v6.pdf The atmosphere will be thicker at mars 2020 EDL so many more landing sites are possible, and possibly a smaller landing ellipse do to some EDl software changes and mars 2020 will be able to land at higher elevations. http://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/201...5_14_14_SCM.pdf this is a "nontraditional" candidate landing site seems to meet the decadel survey and MEPAG requirements, would you vote for it? and why? I propose to make a new thread with perhaps 3 or 4 of these candidate sites with a poll after seeing if the main post gathers any viewers lastly I am going to post the first post here with administrators, to see if you like the content, if so can such a post be migrated to the right spot? |
|
|
May 29 2014, 11:39 PM
Post
#42
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 3108 Joined: 21-December 05 From: Canberra, Australia Member No.: 615 |
Good thought infocat13.
Give the team a day to think about the appropriate set up. Cheers Astro0 |
|
|
May 30 2014, 12:18 AM
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 27-August 05 Member No.: 479 |
Good thought infocat13. Give the team a day to think about the appropriate set up. Cheers Astro0 ok thanks! more thoughts, at what point does a approved mission move from future mission to mars missions? remember the record traffic this sight had on curiosity landing day? an exciting 4 year talk on landing site committee proceedings and polls here on sets of landing sites could be an enabling in powering discussion to point to on mars 2020 landing day curiosity landing site committee was full of proposed traverses such as phil does indeed the landing site committee really does not have such a public input, and this is what the planetary society does right? UNC could be that citizen landing site committee! if we built it would they come? perhaps not................ not at first. does the planetary society ever refer readers here? landing site committee conferences has to be the most exciting idea for citizen participation I can think of even if its low key here.................. and you never know the folks who post here have an eye for orbital imagery and perhaps if we did this we could make a contribution to the landing site committee in the next 4 years? mars missions forum mars 2020 in future missions (existing thread) they discuss technology transfer to mars missions thread or leave there for now make thread header add subthreads...................... mars landing committees goals and engineering proposed landing committee presentations does it meet MEPAG and decadle survey goals? vote on landing targets! not sure how to order them for a vote,how does the landing committee vote? our ums could set our poll to reflect what they do, or not ooops I am repeating myself sorry so we need a sandbox here it would have new thread in mods section to write a complex post for review before ............................ posting |
|
|
May 30 2014, 12:37 AM
Post
#44
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 3108 Joined: 21-December 05 From: Canberra, Australia Member No.: 615 |
The Forum has a major aversity to running polls, so I dont think we'll be doing that.
Like any section on the Forum, discussion topics will evolve over time. The Admin/Mod Team are trying to keep some logical structure in each section and in the future to avoid us having to do major restructring (eg: the recent rebuild of the New Horizons section) we want to keep a tighter reign on the larger covering sub-forums. Topics need to follow a structure that allows future readers to get a clear picture of how the mission evolved and progressed. |
|
|
May 30 2014, 01:03 AM
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 105 Joined: 27-August 05 Member No.: 479 |
Cool I look foreword to your thoughts on the restructuring of the mars 2020 thread and the next 4 years of MEPAg mars lander committee reports....................
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 08:44 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |