Jump to content

Talk:TransHab

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming the article

[edit]

According to the article's sources, including from the (ostensibly) most reliable source, the US gvmt. NASA source (reference no. 1), the correct spelling of the name is TransHab. Does anyone have any objection to correcting the name to TransHab (from Transhab)? Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely the right idea, and I've gone ahead and made the change. Thanks for the suggestion. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. N2e (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Science article

[edit]

The Popular Science article looks relevant for the Bigelow Aerospace page, but less so for this article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Popular Science article are you referring to? Have a link? N2e (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to this article, which is linked to in the TransHab article EL section. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. Thanks. I have read that PS article. The article does contain a number of references to TransHab, what it was, what was learned, when it was cancelled by NASA (Congress?), etc. So I think it is relevant to the TransHab article, although, at Mmeijeri asserts, it is even more relevant to the Bigelow and Bigelow-related articles. For what it is worth, that PS article IS used as a cited source in more than one of the Bigelow artcles. N2e (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit N2e. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. See below for a question about the other Bigelow-specific external links. I think you bring up a good point about how much Bigelow stuff belongs there. N2e (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Per above, it seems there is consensus that the link to the "Five Billion Star Hotel" article may be appropriate. What about the other two Bigelow-specific links? Can we try to develop consensus on whether they are appropriate for this NASA "TransHab" article? N2e (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we delete the links to the two Bigelow sources from the TransHab External Links section. The article already wikilinks to the Bigelow company and the Bigelow successor technology. If no objection, I'll delete them after a week. N2e (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome historical video footage on NASA's TransHab technology

[edit]

As some of you know, I've attempted to better source the TransHab and Bigelow Aerospace expandable space technology articles on Wikipedia for some time now. Well I just today found a video someone posted onto the internet in 2008, that revealed awesome new (to me) vidoe footage of NASA's late-1990s TransHab technology. Includes close up of the layered structure, walk-in and around NASA's terrestrial models in the 1990's, computer animations of use on both the ISS and on Moonbase deployments, and an informative inteview with Judith Watson, the Project Lead at NASA Langley. In short, if you are interested in the topic, you should view this video: Why Inflatable Structures are Important to NASA Now, YouTube historical video posted by "SpaceRefOnOrbit" on 2008-10-07, date of original video and NASA-provided animations and photos unknown, accessed 2010-08-04.

Now that several interested Wikipedia editors can view the video, I have a question. Is this video acceptable as an external link in the article? N2e (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the source video is NASA 360, it is questionable whether the material is in the public domain or not. However, this is the actual video source: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/nasa360/nasa360-0103.html. It's about half-way through the video (I didn't watch it), and transcript picks up at "Okay, earlier in the show...". — Huntster (t @ c) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great locate Huntster. Since the material is NASA material, produced through the NASA 360 vodcast channel by NASA employees (which I did not understand earlier), what is questionable about using it as a link? Isn't all US government-produced media such as this in the public domain? N2e (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, nothing is wrong with using the NASA.gov link, but my understanding was that the NASA 360 folks were *not* NASA employees, and are actually a third-party group that simply has NASA's blessing, which simply means that their podcasts may not be public domain, and thus the YouTube link may be a copyright violation. But I could be wrong. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, disregard. this says it is produced by NASA Langley, so I think we can assume it is public domain. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superb TransHab reference found in the NASA archives

[edit]

Craigboy recently added a link (in the External links section) to a NASA archive document on TransHab: Inflatable Structures Technology Handbook—Chapter 21: Inflatable Habitats, Draft 2000-07-05. I've only read about half of it but want to note here that it is a superb source for a lot of TransHab detail that was unavailable to me when I last made a substantive effort to improve this article. It includes:

  • detailed specs of the habitat
  • details of the structural design of the layers
  • stresses and design engineering considerations
  • material selection considerations, including why Kevlar was selected by NASA over Vectran (note: the followon Bigelow expandable habitat technology seems to have moved to Vectran)
  • details on the layout of the several levels of the habitat
  • cognitive psychology and human factors considerations that went into the design
  • details on the several specific space environment hazards that were accounted for in the design
  • etc.

In short, it is an excellent source for anyone who might want to improve the TransHab article, and would likely also provide considerable insight into what may be in the Bigelow expandable space habitat technology where Bigelow has been very restrained in information release and has kept most design information proprietary. Thanks again to Craigboy for the find! Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for information than I recommend going through some of these if you haven't already.--Craigboy (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also --Craigboy (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation shielding

[edit]

This article is missing the key information of radiation shielding. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on TransHab. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TransHab&oldid=1205747385"