Talk:Bigelow Expandable Activity Module

Better photo?
For photo-interested editors, 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)
 * there might be a better free photo at the NASA HQs Flickr stream here:
 * 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'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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Yes, it is a matter which we will want to get right in the article. But concur with Huntster on waiting until additional sources clarify the situation.  N2e (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The June 2013 Space News source I just added to the article to support the Sierra Nevada berthing mechanism contract says this:
 * "'BEAM, which has an interior volume of about 16 cubic meters, is to be attached to the aft-facing port of the international space station’s Tranquility node in 2015.'"
 * I think it is fairly clear that the interior volume is, in fact, 16 cu. m. It is quite logical that the FAA concerns itself with the external volume.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Structure
Characteristics mentions "two metal bulkheads, an aluminum structure" but no details. One end has a passive? common berthing mechanism, but the other end/bulkhead is what ? What other structure is there ? Diagrams would be wonderful. - Rod57 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)