Talk:Armstrong limit

message: The trivia of "2001" omits that Kubrick asked permision to NASA technics for that scene. They said man can suport the vacuum presion for some seconds. In the movie, the presure of the capsule and the explosion can act too as softeners.
Even in the main text is a link  that explains something similar. I sugest to erase that trivia.
:I agree. Having read a bit on the subject, I think it may be possible to survive such a situation, so I removed the trivia section. Philbert2.71828 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The article doesn't explain why this is called the Armstrong limit. Is it related to Neil Armstrong ? Probably not for his astronaut career, but when he was a X-15 pilot... :fr:user:case 11:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine months later, the questions is answered - nothing to do with Neil. - DavidWBrooks 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name?

message: Currently the page reads "A human would eventually boil in their own body fluids (a process known as ebullism)".  This seems misleading to me, because it gives the idea that they are somehow cooked (the obvious comparison is with stewing some kind of meat to eat).  And that's wrong.  Ebullism (which sounds horrible) is described via the link and it's effectively an extreme form of "the bends" that divers get - bubbles of gas form inside your body.
I guess I could just change it, but I was wondering if I'd missed something (I'm a physicist, not a biologist).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.151.83 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Boil in their own body fluids

message: "At or above the Armstrong limit, exposed bodily liquids such as saliva, tears, and the liquids wetting the alveoli within the lungs... will boil away without a pressure suit"
Shouldn't this read "At or below the Armstrong limit"....  I would assume near the Armstrong limit would still be very dehydrating as water's vapor pressure would be comparitively high.
So, this describes the effect on mucous membranes.  The skin is generally a good moisture barrier.  So, it would seem as if the limit on the skin exposure would be different than say face and eye exposure.--Keelec (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  At or above the Armstrong limit? 

message: I find the caption for the photo a bit confusing because the pilot in the aircraft is in a pressurized cockpit and should be able to transverse the Armstrong limit without negative effects. Or am I missing something? I'd offer the alternative photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:B-8_winter_helmet_%26_A-14_oxygen_mask_(1944).jpg from the cabin pressurization article. Or a slight rewording of the caption might be a better idea. Perhaps I'm a nut and the only one that thought, wait a second, that F-16 pilot would be fine. Velophile (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for the photo 

message: "For modern military aircraft such as the United States’ F‑22 and F‑35" Even the venerable(1950s) McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II & English Electric Lightning operate at high altitudes. Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern?

message: I have gone through the article and standardized the usage of units of measurement. In all cases, I have used the  template so that units are displayed in both customary and SI at each instance. However, since most of the sources for the article are US sources or regulations, I have led with feet when mentioning altitude, or miles in the few cases that is used instead. These units, feet and miles, are also required to be used by international aviation regulations, which I think makes it appropriate to lead with them in this article. 
When discussing pressure, I have led with the SI unit hectopascal. Where it is used to discuss blood pressure, I left the secondary displayed unit as mmHg, as these units are normally used in the medical world. Where discussing pressure altitude, or tire pressure, I have set the secondary displayed unit as psi, since that makes the most sense in those contexts.
I understand that there is frustration on the part of some editors that the US uses non-SI units in many a major way, and failed to convert to mainly SI units like most of the rest of the world in the 1970s. But this is the situation we are stuck with, and here on Wikipedia we cannot fix or change it, only deal with it. Just remember that all units of measurement, SI or otherwise, are essentially arbitrary anyway. Is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second really that much less arbitrary than the average length of 16 men's left feet? And does the usage of one over the other really confer upon you the moral high ground? Darkest Tree Talk 18:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armstrong limit. 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://www.nasaexplores.com/glossary_view_9-12.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330053831/http://www.uspa.org/SIM.aspx to http://www.uspa.org/SIM.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/ebullism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armstrong limit. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721182306/http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html to http://www.geoffreylandis.com/vacuum.html
*Added  tag to http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/ebullism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article reads: "Commercial jetliners are required to maintain cabin pressurization at a cabin altitude of not greater than 2,400 m (8,000 ft)." Why "not greater than"? Shouldn't it be simply "greater than"? --1000Faces (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly not. If it were greater than, then the cabin pressurization altitude would be at a higher altitude and therefore lower pressure. You'd want higher pressure to prevent people from passing out. The wording is correct, the proposed wording removing the "not" is the opposite meaning and therefore wrong -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar problem? -- altitude and pressure 

message: In the "Historical significance" section, it is written "At 11,900 m (39,000 ft), breathing pure oxygen through an unsealed face mask, one is breathing the same partial pressure of oxygen as one would experience with regular air at around 3,600 m (11,800 ft) above sea level." This link however states that at 40000 ft (12190 m) breathing pure oxygen under positive pressure maintains the equivalent altitude of 10000ft, i.e., a lower altitude than the sentence above is mentioning one would have at a lower altitude. The NASA link must be correct because the pressure at 40k ft is 2.72 psi which results at 100% oxygen around 10000 ft in as much oxygen as man can survive with. So the sentence concerning 39000 ft (11.9 km) is obviously wrong, isn't it? Glasfaser Wien (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statements