If you have a question about Unmanned Spaceflight.com, this is the place to ask it.
Was there a change to the rules? I read through them, but I couldn't tell what (if anything) changed. Or are they just posted in a new location?
I would characterize them as tweaks rather than sweeping changes; there are no major additions or removals.
The overaching objective of this effort is to ensure that newcomers to UMSF have an appropriate introduction to the forum. You might have noticed that the admins & mods are also listed for easy refererence.
EDIT: Greg, the biggest changes are in 1.10, 2.8 and adding sections 4, 5 and 6 which compiles more general text from the old guidelines plus other discussions/circumstances had with members over recent years into a more formal format.
These changes are really nice; it's good to see that the previously unwritten rules are now written out. This will especially benefit folks who haven't had the benefit of lurking for years to see what's okay and what isn't.
Just an observation, as a project of the Planetary Society .. I would expect these ideas to be kept in mind.. especially in times of need.. and right now support is critical.. based on press attendance at the MSL conferences.
to quote "The Planetary Society, founded in 1980 by Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman, to inspire and involve the world's public in space exploration through advocacy, projects, and education."
$2.5 billion came from the public.. involve and inspire them
ADMIN: How is this a question to the forum administrators??? Please keep the topic on subject.
Would a post discussing Alan Stern's http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/180221 be a violation of Rule 1.10?
Yes, as well as 1.2...please read the description of the project on the link.
I've got a quick question about membership statistics: has there been a significant bump in registration and traffic since MSL landed and especially after getting namedropped on NASA TV?
Or is there some place we can see the site statistics? Alexa doesn't show very much.
Yes on both counts. The number of new members is about triple what it would normally be in this period.
If you want exact numbers on views and page loads helvick should be able to answer that better than I can.
Great, I sent a PM.
As Dan has said the rate at which we are authorizing number of new members is about triple the normal level. We don't have a massive userbase, the current number of registered users is 2830.
I don't have anything in place to track the ip-board statistics over time, that's something I'm looking at but right now I'm not aware of an easy way to get them. That said we do have some data points about the most important macro indicators of server load which is the number of concurrent users. This normally ranges between 50 and 100, with the ratio of registered users to visitors typically being around 5:1.
On the morning of the MSL launch this rose to around 350 concurrent users at 6:52AM (BST), this rose a little over the next 30 minutes but we were obviously having performance issues around 07:30AM BST, and users started to see timeouts. We made some performance tweaks to address that around 7:45 and by 7:56 we had 490 concurrent users and briefly passed 1000 concurrent users at around 8:00AM BST on August 6th. I didn't keep a record of the number of users to visitors at that time but at the peak I think we had about 300 concurrent registered users and 700 or so visitors.
As a comparison the largest previous spike that we have numbers for was at around 270 users for the Phoenix landing.
Peak Bandwidth spiked from a typical average of 300kb/sec to something north of 6Mb/sec. This is averaged over an hour by our server stats package, and the instantaneous peaks were a lot higher.
I'll update this with charts later but in terms of hits\page views\visits we peaked at 1.6 million hits, 230k page views and 40K actual visits over the course of August 6th. The data load associated with an average visit rose too, to about 5x the normal 100-200K/visit since we carried about 22GB of traffic on the 6th. Overall those numbers are about 10x our normal volume.
Things have now calmed down a lot, but we're still running slightly higher than average across the board.
That's amazing; I knew the site was put under stress at crunch time, but that's a more complete picture. Thanks so much Helvik; the charts should be impressive too.
I wonder what the next high-traffic spike event will be: I can't think of any missions off the top of my head for a while at least.
In the old days, Doug used to posts some satistics like this as well as the most popular topics, etc, and I personnaly miss them. I'd said having those details, say, once or twice a year would be great.
BTW, it stands incredible that Curiosity Landing topic reached 50% of Eduardo's Oppy route in no time.
I'll take a stab at that too. And just to show the long term trend of total posts per month since we started back in 2004:
Emily & Helvick, thanks... And I've got the point.
Some long term info for those interested in the volume of traffic over time.
And that's pretty much exactly what I was asking for. I wonder how much bigger the current spike will get over time.
Thanks again helvick!
Would discussion of this relatively recently published http://ijass.org/PublishedPaper/year_abstract.asp?idx=132 be banned here due to potential astrobiology content?
Yes. Try NASASpaceflight.com, the BAUT forums, or the Yellow Forum.
I noted the reminder about rule 1.3, so I reread it.
I'm pretty sure that it used to say astrobiology *could* be discussed ONLY within the strict context of specific, related mission goals.
Am I misremembering? And if I'm not, can someone say something about the problems that caused the tightening up?
Lastly, I appreciate the acknowledgement that a future change might be appropriate. I do understand the tsunami you are keeping at bay, but the idea that the very concept of "organics" cannot be discussed in a forum devoted to a mission looking for them is...quite remarkable, whatever the provocations that spurred it.
Two of MSL's four science goals are strictly astrobiological, so clearly they run outside the rules here.
However, whatever the goals are, that doesn't translate into a proportional breakdown of mission activity or relevance to the day-by-day activities. I think it's clear that MSL's intended activity will generate enough data to write a few books purely on the geological aspects of Mars. The single greatest focus of its activity will be to characterize what is expected to be a past era that was warmer and wetter and Ph neutral. Assuming it operates successfully, that will leave a vast amount to say within the context of this board. Not to mention all of the other eras it may give us a peek into as it climbs higher: The history book of Mars's early geology and the corresponding climate. That's quite a broad set of topics.
You're right; that's a major contrast between MSL and Viking. When I was interviewing Matt Golombek for my articles on MSL, I asked him if MSL was "Viking on wheels," since they're similar-size spacecraft with similar-sized payloads, and he said sort of, but mostly not; Viking "swung for the fences" in life discovery, while MSL has different science goals, and an instrument suite to back them up, that will produce major scientific results no matter what it discovers.
What Emily said.
And my cheap two cents worth:
We aren't touching astrobiology. We're just not. Not indirectly, not obliquely, not for love, and not for money.
I hope by now that is abundantly clear.
If it's not...please feel free to PM me for clarification, and esp. before posting anything related to the subject...but please be sure to read rule 1.3 first.
Hello. I'm having a problem viewing the last posts in a thread (any thread). Here is a screenshot of what I see. Please let me know what's up. I have sent a message to a mod with no response, yet. Thanks.
Looks like your viewing options have been changed to Outline mode.
Look under the 'Options' button upper right and change the Display Mode to 'Standard'.
That'll fix it.
Thanks, Astro. I never knew I could do that (change the type of view) in a forum. Awesome!
I need to throw this at ya…..
There was a conference earlier this month at UCLA on Mars Habitability: link below
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.
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.
I will post ...
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!
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.
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.
Rosetta subforum Por favor? Should be a high volume topic here shortly (fingers crossed).
Good thought infocat13.
Give the team a day to think about the appropriate set up.
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.
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....................
http://asterisk.apod.com/index.php is mentioned in the http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules as a place to go to discuss the topics banned at this forum. While it may be true for some things like astrobiology or some casual talk about Pluto's planethood, it's not a good place to send people regarding pseudoscience, aliens, politics, religion, etc. I'm one of the three admins there and while we want to be very open to anyone who is curious about astronomy and science in general, we've tried very hard to turn the forum around in the past few years. It's still not a place where serious discussions happen often but it is slowly changing. We aggressively moderate crackpots and anti-science and try to keep it informative and stick to mainstream science.
I think Asterisk was added to that list when there were no rules and the crackpots were running rampant. I don't know if it is even necessary to change the wording of the rules, but I do want to say that I don't want the garbage flowing over to my forum any more than it already does!
Anyway, from one admin to another, I admire the work and passion you guys put into your forum.
Noted, Judy! But I think the same is true of some other forums mentioned there as well (notably NASASpaceflight). I think Starship Asterisk and NASASpaceflight both represent good locations to discuss human spaceflight and astrobiology, both of which are banned topics here, for instance. How about we add the following sentence to that list: "Each of these forums has its own unique rules of conduct and allowable content."
Nod. I'm sure the other forums don't want people ignoring their rules, either. It's hard to keep up with them but I would guess that a lot of them have gone through similar processes restructuring to cut the chaff out. There's probably not a lot of legitimate places to go have an argument about aliens these days. Asterisk was one of the last.
Is it possible to change my username?
I don't believe that the Change Display Name option is enabled on the Forum.
If you can send me a PM with the change you'd like to make, I will get the backroom team to amend it.
Feel stupid bringing this up this way... but then... here goes.
Maybe nobody else noticed it; good eye!
There's an ESA logo on that slide, so my assumption would be that it was intentionally released by them. Don't see any reason not to discuss it.
(Disclaimer: I'm just a mod, not an admin.)
Why would the Rosetta team not want images it presents at a press briefing discussed, and published? They pointed out that in landing at site J, the chosen landing site, Philae would be within sight of those vents and hopefully see them in action. Hopefully there will be no "hole in one" as with Opportunity!
Was just surprised I did not see these among the released images published in the ROSETTA blog. Do not want to rock a boat and have them clamp down even more.
Images really are cool.....
Not a people person and sometimes I do not have much sense!
Will still wait for am admin to reply here...
Well BBC News release has imbedded video where Imaging Lead Holger Sierks outlines these vent zones.. so will post to our ROSETTA
If ESA has released it then it's open for discussion.
Is there a way to send PMs to multiple recipients, or do you have to create a separate PM for each one?
Not an admin, but I know this one. If you go to the 'compose message' option you'll see a box where you can CC up to six other members, Tom.
Thanks Nick, but I don't see a cc field when I click on "compose new message."
There's a field for "recipient," and next to it is a drop-down menu that says "other," with one item in the menu. Choosing "other" doesn't do anything, and the one item in the menu is the name of a user who has posted 4 times (I might have a dim recollection of sending him a PM about something 8 or 9 years ago).
I tried putting multiple usernames in the "recipient" field, separated by commas, but the system rejected it.
Sorry to be bringing this up on the eve of Pluto closest approach; I'll understand if there's a delay in responding.
Huh. No worries, but I'm confused. When I select "Compose New Message" I get this, with a field below the recipient bar for CCs:
Yeah, I've seen such a cc box on other boards, but not here. I've looked through my old PMs, including ones involving a meet-up in NYC in 2008, and don't see any with multiple recipients.
Same result with current versions of Chrome & Firefox for Mac. Although I am running an older version of Mac OS, 10.6.8.
Ugh, I hope it doesn't come down to an OS specific quirk.
I also don't see multiple recipients enabled as an option. Nick, perhaps being a moderator grants you super powers?
Yeah, I thought about that--I don't know. Hopefully a more knowledgable admin or mod will chime in here.
It's likely a spam-limiting option.
I am a new member of the forum and joined to be able to share with the members an open-source software that was created by AMNH in collaboration with NASA JPL and Linkoping University.
The capabilities of our open-source software really ties in with what is discussed and created in this thread (and more):
As it is an open-source software that is 100% free to use I wasn't sure whether or not it violates 6.1 of Rules and Guidelines - "Blatant advertising on the Forum is not permitted..."
We really want to share what we have with the members here as we have been frequently been visiting many of the threads in hope of broadening our visualization, but, I want to make sure we follow the rules of the forum before we put up any links.
Mainly, the idea is to make our software available to as many people as possible and by doing so - to spread the science of unmanned missions and promote the engineering effort that goes in to that - and as one of the developers I really hope to get some feedback from the members of this forum.
So the question is: can I respond in that thread or do I create a new one? If it is opensource and related to mapping of pluto / charon - is it a violation of rule 6.1 still?
Hi, Michal. Thanks for asking in accordance with our rules for this sort of thing. Feel free to create a topic for your software in ourhttp://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=79 section.
Could I have my account completely deleted?
Thank you for everything!
Welcome to UMSF. Great first post!
I am right now translating JAXA's November 2015 report on Akatsuki.
Usually, I do not have problems with saying which bits and pieces I am translating on a particular
page. However, there are occasionally times when I find it difficult to verbally explain where I am
translating, because contents are complex in layout.
In translating I normally copy the whole page using "Skitch" and copy it on to a fresh WORD page and start
However, sometimes it may be convenient for me and readers alike, if I place arrows with numbers
on the skitched page and do translation agains these numbers.
However, the size of pasted page may be viewd by you as too heavy. For instance, page-8 of the said report
with a skitch C&P is approx. 3.3 MB, while without it is only 4KB.
My question is therefore, are we allowed to send up (not constantly, of course) heavy pages like that?
Of course, the pasted content may disappear on the way up, I do not know, as I have not tried it before.
Grateful for comments.
Thak you. Pandaneko
Pandaneko, you might try taking a screen capture; or printing it to a PDF; but if these do not work, you can email them to me (blog at planetary dot org) and I can reduce their file size so they will not be heavy for people. Thanks for your work.
Are meeting abstracts (published on meeting website of LPSC 2017 for example) off limits to post links to before the meeting? Just wondering why my last Titan post was taken down and sorry if it's plainly stated in the rules.
Hi, titanicrivers. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8285&pid=234525&st=0&#entry234525 was actually moved to the Exploration Strategy subsection since the subsequent discussion was about very early mission proposals.
LPSC abstracts are fine. In fact, there's a dedicated http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8284&pid=234441&st=0&#entry234441 thread in the Conferences & Publications subsection for that.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)