Talk:Bigelow Expandable Activity Module

Spaceflight Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better photo?

For photo-interested editors,

there might be a better free photo at the NASA HQs Flickr stream here: [1]
there are better graphics at some of the mainline press and space press articles here, but I'm less certain how the fair use stuff works on using such images in Wikipedia.

I'm adding a {{reqphoto}} tag as I think the article would be improved with a better article-level image. N2e (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the reqphoto request. I'll be keeping an eye out for better images or graphics, but for the time being, I believe the image already in use is the best free photo out there. I'm sure NASA will release a computer graphic at some point soon, though, and I'll upload it at that time. Also, since there already exists this representative free image, using a non-free graphic or image really isn't an option anymore. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works for me. You are one of the best wikiphoto- and wikiimage-knowledgeable editors out there, and if you are keeping a watch out, that will be great. I can nver quite figure out all the rulz on images, so generally leave it to other editors who specialize in such things. Thanks for your contributins to the article. N2e (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a pretty terrible maze to navigate sometimes, and it's only getting worse with the U.S. trying to tweak copyright rules all the time, even public domain rules. :/ — Huntster (t @ c) 00:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volume

FAA lists it as 32 cu m

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/The_Annual_Compendium_of_Commercial_Space_Transporation_2012.pdf

--Craigboy (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure how to reconcile this issue. I suspect the article refers to habitable space, whereas the FAA document refers to module occupied volume. I'd suggest waiting for additional sources that can tie-break, or at least provide more specific information. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]