8
$\begingroup$

I have mixed feelings on this question: Designing a binary asteroid pair

On the one hand it's an excellent hard science question. On the other hand though it seems to be asking for a lot of different bits of information, however they are all linked together.

Is the fact that most of this information is linked with the rest enough that this is valid or is it too broad as it stands?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The thing that sticks out to me is the combination of the science-fiction and hard-science tags. There's just something incongruent about it... $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Nov 4 '16 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ I count 11 question marks in the body of that question, many of which are only loosely tied together. That should speak for itself. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Nov 4 '16 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ Should I remove the sci-fi tag? $\endgroup$ – Innovine Nov 4 '16 at 23:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @innovine I don't see a problem with the tags. Hard science fiction is a thing :) $\endgroup$ – Tim B Nov 5 '16 at 8:38
3
$\begingroup$

There's plenty of questions in there indeed. Your concerns and your mention of these question being linked quite closely both are valid.

Personally I feel the question would benefit from being split up into a series of questions. You could create a single question for each '?' in the text, but the three bold headings make for good areas to split it apart, each can concentrate on a subpart that can but does not necessarily have to relate to the answers of the other questions.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If it were broken into sub questions, wouldn't they be better off on space.stackexchange.com? $\endgroup$ – Innovine Nov 4 '16 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Innovine that is one possible conclusion; if some parts of the question fit a more specific SE format than WB, then in my opinion they should be asked on these specific SE pages where there's guaranteed to be a higher percentage of experts on that subject $\endgroup$ – dot_Sp0T Nov 5 '16 at 8:43
3
$\begingroup$

Oppose to splitting this question in small chunks

Reason is OP is just asking about description of viable model, and states parameters of the model he is interested for. A model can be described by millions of parameters, but he asks just for some subset of those parameters and he lists them in form of questions.

Answering that question demands just take real world example and describe them https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_asteroid - he do need theory. It is clearly seen on langrange points part of that question.

Splitting the question in small chunks increases work needed and makes it harder and less likely to get some solid answer - because it will lead to produce multiple models by multiple people with different preferences and make that work each time for tiny bit of information.

What I do not like in that question is hard-science tag, but it is my opinion and reason why I will not answer that question. Science-based is enough in that situation, OP obviously do not need HS, he just need some numbers which is directly asked by him, and it looks like because he wish some numbers HS is choosen.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .