Exoplanet questions and other planetary science questions seem to be valid here, on Space Exploration, and on Physics. Where do we draw the line on what is valid where?

  • $\begingroup$ wouldn't actual atmospheric scientific and detection techniques be more relevant for here? $\endgroup$ – user8 Sep 24 '13 at 19:18
  • $\begingroup$ @UV-D That's what we need to decide as a community. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ @UV-D Why don't you make a case for it in answer to this question. People will upvote it if they agree with you, or suggest improvements/alternatives. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:23

Summary: Planetary science is on topic.

We don't need to. It's perfectly OK for sites to have an overlap. Migrations should only be done if:

  • The question is off topic on the source site
  • If not, it still may be migrated on OPs request
  • If it is borderline on topic on the source site and doesn't get answers, again it can be migrated.

No need to draw a line. It's fine if more than one site gets a piece of the pie.

  • $\begingroup$ So should we call planetary science questions on-topic here? $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @called2voyage Yep. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth Sep 24 '13 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @called2voyage Yes! (and this talk of pie is making me hungry... breakfast time here) $\endgroup$ – user8 Sep 24 '13 at 19:57
  • $\begingroup$ Then, IMO, this is the best answer. If we agree it is on-topic with both sites, then there shouldn't be any conflict. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:57

Okay, here is my rationale, using the question that I posted "How are the compositional components of exoplanet atmospheres differentiated?" s an example, which started this discussion.

This question is asking about the scientific basis for differentiating the atmospheric spectra from the parent star, planetary surface etc. It is an example of a question pertaining to the detection of and nature of the compositions of components of exoplanets.

The reasons I believe that this and similar exoplanet based questions should stay here are:

  • The question is asking about an astronomical technique (detection of the compositions), so not necessarily Space Exploration based, as it is not about travelling there.

  • The fact that it I asking about the atmospheric composition techniques, means that it would be bordering on off-topic for Physics

Also as a side note, some members here are not members of Space Exploration (such as myself) and some are not members of Physics.

Edited to add: there is another question posted about exoplanet weather "What is the most extreme weather found on another planet?" - which I believe would not match the other 2 sites at all.

  • $\begingroup$ +1 Your first argument is very strong to me. The last sentence is a fairly weak argument. The line betwen Astronomy and Space Exploration is a little more fuzzy than the line between Astronomy and Physics, so there might end up being some complications when it comes to how the line is drawn for planetary sciences between here and SpaceEx. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ @called2voyage the first argument is the main point. The last one is a side note - will edit to emphasise that point. Also edited in a link to another question been posted about exoplanet atmospheres $\endgroup$ – user8 Sep 24 '13 at 19:40

We need to be careful to avoid the English Language & Usage / English Language Learners problem over here. Planetary sciences is one area that is particularly fuzzy when it comes to determining what is space exploration and what is astronomy. I suggest that we need to draw a line somewhere in the middle, and we need to draw it early and stick to it.

Questions of astronomical technique in planetary sciences should belong here.

Questions regarding rovers, satellites, etc. involved in planetary sciences should belong at SpaceEx.

I imagine there will be other things that don't clearly fall into the above two categories, and we need to figure out how to handle them.

  • $\begingroup$ UV-D has pointed out a type already that doesn't fit into these two categories: orbits and rotations of planets. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage Sep 24 '13 at 19:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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