[Solarsail]

Don't agree -w/all this cynicism... (Did I get a programmer's joke to work?)

Your fastest open-cycle resource usage is water. If you can recycle your water, you've got much slower mass-growth per unit of time in free flight. This could make the difference between 8 hour spacewalk capabilities and 8 day spacewalks.

[somenameforme]

Things break. Moving things break much more frequently. In space, where any error can easily be fatal, you generally want to keep things as simple as possible to complete the task at hand. As well, when things break you want them to be as easy to repair as possible. Complexity should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, or in cases where the benefit provided is tremendous. Extremely lengthy spacewalks won't happen for numerous reasons (oxygen, battery, exhaustion, radiation, and so on) so that's not really even a desirable goal.

[guhidalg]

> Extremely lengthy spacewalks won't happen for numerous reasons (oxygen, battery, exhaustion, radiation, and so on) so that's not really even a desirable goal.

You're not thinking creatively enough. When life support fails and astronauts have to live in their suits for extended periods of time, what is the difference between an extended spacewalk and having to live in your suit for a while?

[erik_seaberg]

Don't spacesuits mostly use water for cooling, with a supply of ice that gradually absorbs heat (from the closed loop) and sublimates into space?

[saagarjha]

What about oxygen though