Talk:Mechanical counterpressure suit

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)

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)

Did anybody ever move on this? The Biosuit used to have its own page and image on Wikipedia; why was it merged with the Space Activity Suit? We should at least have an image of it here. (Elustran (talk) 21:25, 10 July 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)

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)

The Basis

After reading a great deal about this project, I have a great deal of respect for those involved in it. I feel that it should be noted though that all of this research was started by a gentleman named Arthur S. Iberall. I find it strange that his work is rarely mentioned, and would hate to think that it was omitted due to its military origin(having been commissioned by the Air Force). The report of his tests and their outcomes is available on the web(or was) though it is hard to find. Here is the text of the title page.

THE USE OF LINES OF NONEXTENSION TO IMPROVE MOBILITY IN FULL-PRESSURE SUITS

ARTHUR S. IBERALL

RAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOVEMBER 1964 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.121.187 (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about that, but I do recall reading about this idea in Analog (Science Fiction/ Science Fact, admittedly mostly fiction) some time in the 60s. I suspect it was describing the later work by Paul Webb, but perhaps someone could confirm that, on the off chance that it described earlier work.Mcswell (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Air pressure on the International Space Station

The atmospheric pressure on the International Space Station is currently 101.3 kPa (29.91 inHg). A space suit that uses the same air pressure could be used without the astronauts having to waste several hours acclimatising. People in lunar bases, Mars bases, planetary rovers and spaceships will have the same problem. They will need to be able to move their fingers.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir, space suits use a lower pressure for several very good reasons. First and foremost, more pressure leads to an increase in the thickness of the pressure suit, making it heavier and uncomfortable. Second, but no less important, additional pressure increases the mechanical force required to move in the suit - bending an arm for example would reduce the volume around the elbow, meaning the air around it must be compressed, making it feel like using a bicycle pump and causing your arms to fly outwards whenever you relaxed (this is partially corrected by semi-constant volume joints). However, a full-atmospheric-pressure suit does not make engineering sense. A mechanical-compression suit could be used however to eliminate many of the constraints and allow standard atmospheric pressure to be supplied to the wearer (for his breathing only). 7/7/12 JimRoper —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking full atmospheric pressure but the lower pressure used in the ISS. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection

The article says that the head is the only area of the body that needs to be pressurized. What about the other cavities in the human body, like the penis? --75.173.18.129 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure it means that the head is the only area requiring gas pressure, and the rest of the body could do with mechanical pressure. I agree that the sentence in question makes it sound like the rest of the body can be exposed to hard vacuum, but to the way the sentences run it would require a bit of a rewrite of the whole paragraph. Suggested wording?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, wouldn't the other cavities allow the gas in your body to escape? --75.173.18.129 (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the space suit could be like a frog diver's suit that is tight against the skin. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cooling

I notice that there is no mention of cooling in the article. I believe the occupant's sweat is normally used. I seem to remember a talk given by Hubert "Vic" Vykukal of NASA AIMS (developer of the AX-5 hard suit) that sweat evaporation would tend to condense on nearby surfaces (optics likely being more problematic). Vic also described the size of the suit before donning as looking like it would be "the size to fit a toddler" or something like that. I believe that Space Shuttle suits use ice so there is no "out-gassing". Anybody know of sources on SAS and cooling? Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space activity suit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)