[X] My Assistant

[Stu]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26414

See also: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...-a-sunlike-star

[ngunn]

Fortunately there is a good definition of a substellar object - no fusion at all.

Rule 1.9 - no problem with those of us talking here at the moment. Doug - if the discussion's attracting stuff you've had to delete please let us know.

Extrasolar discussion is a guest here - it hasn't anything to do with robotic exploration - so I guess we're here only as long as no aministrative hassle ensues. That's fair enough.

[David]

Extrasolar discussion is a guest here - it hasn't anything to do with robotic exploration - so I guess we're here only as long as no aministrative hassle ensues. That's fair enough.

That's an interesting question though -- I've seen posts on UMSF about telescopic observations of Jupiter, Titan, Mercury, etc., and telescopic observation is often if not always an adjunct and precursor of exploratory spaceflight -- and the imaging results from telescopes often make an interesting comparison with spacecraft-based observations. While I'm sure "how do you classify this object in space" is of only peripheral interest, it would be a shame to create rules so narrow that telescopic observations could not be discussed at all. It seems to me that telescopic exploration is a kind of space exploration, even if it doesn't involve launching something into space. Does a telescope have to be in space before its imagery is topical?

[djellison]

a telescope

That's Astronomy. Not Unmannedspaceflight.

Imagery that ties into unmannedspaceflight from ground based or orbital assets is fair game. Just general observations I don't think should be.

Images of extra-solar planets, nebulae, novae etc etc - can't really be considered on topic for UMSF. Just because UMSF is a good venue for the discussion of , err, UMSF, that doesn't mean it should be a good venue for the discussion of anything space science related.