Talk:Space activity suit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disadvantages?

The article talks about the advantages of this kind of space suit, yet it is not the type used by any space programmes. Clearly there must be reasons for this. Could we perhaps balance the article by noting disadvantages as well as advantages? --mgaved 17:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The disadvantages should be obvious, but could perhaps be more explicitly declared: This technology is not yet production-ready, and as such it remains experimental, expensive, and undeployable in the target work environment. I would like to see more language discussing the specific materials science challenges to be overcome to make a production-ready Space Activity Suit a reality, but regrettably am not expert enough in the field to give useful commentary. --An old space-hound 19:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps you could write some of these into the article. I am afraid I must dispute one point with you though - wikipedia is a general interest information resource so I think it's a little elitist to make the statement "The disadvantages should be obvious" - I think we should assume no prior expertise in the reader. regards --mgaved 18:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The image

Could someone in the know bump up the brightness and/or exposure of the image? I keep trying in Preview but it doesn't seem to save the changes. Maury (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be better to use an image of the MIT Biosuit, if a free version is available? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Ideally we should have both, but I'd guess that the BioSuit would likely have much better images. Do you think you can get MIT to release one of the images into the public domain? That might be a bit of a coup! Maury (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Swpb^talk.edits 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much better. Maury (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it — it is you who have done 99% of the work in turning this article around. — Swpb^talk.edits 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] James Bond

The article says that the misconception about the skin needing to breathe is propagated in part by James Bond movies (plural). I have not seen all the James Bond films so Goldfinger is the only one that I know of that the editor was probably referring to. Perhaps someone who is familiar with all the films can confirm whether or not the word "movies" should be reduced to singular and linked to Goldfinger. Moreover, does anyone think that this line about James Bond films is not rigorous enough for inclusion? No where does it show if this misconception is widely held or if it is in fact due to James Bond. Dwr12 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for the same reasons. You are not being nit-picky -- this is an encyclopedia not a discussion forum, and a higher standard applies. I appreciate the intent, but the statement seems non-encyclopedic and casual in tone. Joema (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to just unilaterally delete this yet, so I'll try to tone down the casualness of the sentence for now and take out the James Bond part. Dwr12 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a reference. Really though, no one else googled this? Maury (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't think this is an improvement. Originally I had asked whether there were multiple Bond films with the skin thing in it since the original wording was plural. However, the bigger issue is why we are even mentioning James Bond. It is a trivial element in the Bond film, and this "tid-bit" doesn't have anything to do with the article topic itself. Its contribution to the article is tangential.Dwr12 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)