Talk:Bigelow Aerospace
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Genesis-1
Can anyone find a time for the G1 launch? --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to this article it launched at 6:53 PM Moscow time, which I believe would be 15:53 UTC. --StuffOfInterest 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The following Dnepr was a failed launch. Any impact on the second Genesis ? Hektor 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discounts/Sales Info
Not sure that "A quantity between 3 to 5 items will receive a 10 percent discount, making the price $265.50 each." belongs. Removing it for now. Augustz 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Expanding my previous reasoning per a question. To have a 10% discount on some product if you buy between 3 and 5 of that product is not really notable. The pricing information is short lived as well (the program that this level of pricing detail is given for is only going to be around 30 more days). Wikipedia is not an advertising service for products and promotions. I left that the price was $295 for the fly your stuff program, so it's not pricing info, but special promotions and sales info that was removed. It may be interesting to get some more viewpoints on this, as I haven't done a lot of editing, but have followed wikipedia a long time. Augustz 19:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not that I'm wildly opposed to the edit (though I did ask about it) but I'd think maybe something like "$265-$295, based on quantity" (or whatever) might have been fair. I see the issue with the potential advertising view of things. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Module names
Why are the Genesis modules named with Arabic numerals rather than Roman Numerals? The Bigalow site uses Roman format, so one would think that would be the proper method on here as well... Any specific reasons? -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Roman numerals is the correct usage. I've fixed a few in the Bigelow Aerospace entries. Spitwater 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, always nice to have a person on-board with inside knowledge. Just avoid the conflict-of-interest thing, eh? ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Durability
The statement that an inflatable space station should be more durable, while plausible, is not backed up. The link given as a reference is just an MSNBC story that mentions, among other things, that "in theory" an inflatable station should be more resistant to micrometeorite damange than other designs. That's pretty weak sauce.
Again, the statement doesn't seem outrageous, given that there is some easy way to patch the inevitable punctures, but whose theory are we talking about here? Are there any competing theories? Has any of this been tested? I would expect that actual technical papers on the subject are not hard to come by, and these would be much more convincing. -Dmh 16:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The article does not state the modules will be more durable than conventional stations, it states that Bigelow Aerospace anticipates that they will. I'm still not sure that article is a good source on that either. --Sindri 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the source to a more detailed article from the BBC. Spitwater 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
