Talk:Mature technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brands (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Mature = "idiot safe" ?[edit]

I think this is wrong or at least very depending on POV. For example, the article considers computers as not fully mature tech. because they are not idiot safe. But cars are considered a mature technology. Why? Driving without qualification (driving lessons, license) is highly dangerous and not "easy" and cars usually have to be maintained by trained staff. Planes are in use everyday and very safe, may I only call them "mature tech" when they can be flown by non experts (someone w/o a pilot license)? Are the instruments that a dentist uses not mature tech because they cannot be used by everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.97.179 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Manned space flight[edit]

One could argue that space flight is mature. The technology has not changed or made significant advances in 40 years (as of this writing). This suggests maturity. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"that most of its initial faults and inherent problems have been removed or reduced by further development."
I argue that none of these have been removed in the case of spaceflight. It is still horribly dangerous (compared with pretty much any sort of transportation), and is probably the most difficult and expensive form of transport to engage in. Lack of breakthrough itself does not define a mature technology. Ingolfson (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
The initial faults have been removed. The inherent problems have been reduced, but will never be eliminated. They are, after all, inherent. I'm not sure you can ever make it truly safe without substantially changing the technology. You need a space elevator, nuclear propulsion or negative energy to significantly improve space flight. These are not the same technology. The current technology (that is, traveling by using chemical rockets that fly ballistically into orbit) is most certainly mature. Unfortunately, it has inherent problems that can't be significantly reduced.
Just because a technology still has "inherent" problems doesn't mean it isn't mature. There are "inherent" problems with automobile as well, but I don't think anyone would argue that automobile technology isn't mature. (E.g. They travel at high speed and can't withstand an impact with a stationary object, for example.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Spaceflight is not limited to a propulsion mode, it is a concept, and thus much wider. Ingolfson (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Human Space Flight not manned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.212.93 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)