Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
bluesnote

Lunar Specimens

14 posts in this topic

All,

 

I have created a new category (Lunar Specimens) that I want some feedback on before putting it into a group vote. I think this category could be a great one, since I have made it very wide spread to include everything I could think of. I see a lot of potential here. Thoughts?

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=97ce8dd0-9922-469a-b905-c60e6f8fef70&r=200&gid=6&exp=True

 

bluesnote

0

Share this post


Link to post

As your examples of acceptable waymarks are existing waymarks it appears most of the items that would be listed in this category are duplicates. Most of the other examples can also be listed in other categories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As your examples of acceptable waymarks are existing waymarks it appears most of the items that would be listed in this category are duplicates. Most of the other examples can also be listed in other categories.

 

In the past, I remember that we've had similar categories with this issue before. One example being Paleontology & Fossils, which do currently have some waymarks crossing over into the Rocks & Minerals category, but not all can cross over. Another example would be LEGO Sculptures and Models which, before this category, were submitted under the Figurative / Abstract Sculptures categories. This goes the same with Silhouette Sculptures. All of which, we've seen in the past and have gotten past peer review.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion this category is valid. The wording is somewhat awkward and the examples are unnecessarily complicated, but better this than unclear and fuzzy.

 

My definition of the redundant criterion is that it must not be completely covered by an existing category. This is almost not the case here, but only due to the fact that the category accepts examples that are beyond the obvious. So this point does not have a clear winner.

 

The category does add a new aspect on locations/item that probably all can already be waymarked. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is not great.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Spelling errors and some awkward phrasing -- and THREE pictures required? I think 2 is better. Other than that, I think this is a cool category and we would support it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The wording is somewhat awkward and the examples are unnecessarily complicated, but better this than unclear and fuzzy.

 

Spelling errors and some awkward phrasing --

 

Yes I know. I will be editing the description today to make it more concise. My computer has autocorrect so when I am typing, it sometimes puts in phrases that don't always make sense. I'll make a new post in the forum when it has been updated.

 

and THREE pictures required? I think 2 is better. Other than that, I think this is a cool category and we would support it.

 

I will make this more clear in the category, but basically here is what I meant by that. Three photos if a plaque is present. Two photos if it's not. We need a bare minimum of two different angles of the specimen and one additional photo of the plaque to prove the specimen actually has had contact with lunar dust or is a real moon rock. If no plaque is there, then this photo can be submitted for a website so we can prove it's authenticity.

 

Thank you for your feedback everyone!

0

Share this post


Link to post

The wording is somewhat awkward and the examples are unnecessarily complicated, but better this than unclear and fuzzy.

 

I agree...the three photo requirement is a bit much.

 

Spelling errors and some awkward phrasing --

 

Yes I know. I will be editing the description today to make it more concise. My computer has autocorrect so when I am typing, it sometimes puts in phrases that don't always make sense. I'll make a new post in the forum when it has been updated.

 

and THREE pictures required? I think 2 is better. Other than that, I think this is a cool category and we would support it.

 

I will make this more clear in the category, but basically here is what I meant by that. Three photos if a plaque is present. Two photos if it's not. We need a bare minimum of two different angles of the specimen and one additional photo of the plaque to prove the specimen actually has had contact with lunar dust or is a real moon rock. If no plaque is there, then this photo can be submitted for a website so we can prove it's authenticity.

 

Thank you for your feedback everyone!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, the category has been edited. Two photos are now required, instead of three. I have also edited some typos and awkward phrases. I may have missed some. If there is anything else, let me know so I can edit it and move further along in the discussion. Is there anything else that I should add that we should accept into the category? Something that I may be missing?

 

Thank you for all your support.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Concerning wording, I am sending many comments directly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Will pieces of equipment etc that were in the command module (exposed to the astronauts) be accepted?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Will pieces of equipment etc that were in the command module (exposed to the astronauts) be accepted?

 

What do you mean by this? Are you saying anything that was brought to the moon (and back) should be accepted? Could you explain?

0

Share this post


Link to post

When the astronaut finished walking on the moon he entered the Lunar Module where moon dust would have settled. The Lunar Module did not return to earth. It was released to crash into the moon or the sun. If we accept the Command Module as a likely place for lunar dust, we should also accept any equipment from inside the crew spaces of the Command Module, equipment which might now be displayed separate from the Command Module itself.

 

Soviet craft Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 also returned to earth with lunar samples.

0

Share this post


Link to post

When the astronaut finished walking on the moon he entered the Lunar Module where moon dust would have settled. The Lunar Module did not return to earth. It was released to crash into the moon or the sun. If we accept the Command Module as a likely place for lunar dust, we should also accept any equipment from inside the crew spaces of the Command Module, equipment which might now be displayed separate from the Command Module itself.

 

Soviet craft Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 also returned to earth with lunar samples.

 

So, if there were like clipboards or pens from the Apollo Missions? Like other items that were only in the command module? I'd say that's a plausible idea. I don't want to get a head of ourself and post random objects, but I think we could have this category dedicated to anything that went to the moon and back. Maybe event include some aspects of the moon trees category as well. This would make it less confusing I think. But again, I don't think we should be posting 30 waymarks for a display case with pens from the Apollo missions; only one.

 

Thank you for advising me that other spacecraft did return to earth with samples. I had a feeling that some did, but I was unsure. I'll add those to the category description. I also know that on Apollo 12, they brought back parts of Surveyor 3 which will also be added.

 

I'll post an update soon when those changes have been made. Thanks for the suggestions.

0

Share this post


Link to post

"Examples:

...Apollo 15 Service Module - National Space Centre - London, UK..."

 

Service modules burned up during reentry to earth's atmosphere.

 

National Space Centre is in Belgrave, Leicester.

Edited by elyob
0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2