The reason not to use pencils in Space wasn't that Pencil are inflamable, the main reason was the graphit dust produced by Pencils, which because of the lack of gravity, enter floating in the electronic, causing short circuits as main risk.
That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!
Technically, I think they're different. Flammable means that it can be lit on fire, like wood or something. Whereas inflammable means it can catch fire on its own, like gas, for example.
Edit: after some googling, it appears that my source was shit and should be disregarded. They do indeed appear to be synonyms. And also, I was thinking of gasoline. I think I was thinking of the "gas pedal" and that threw me off.
Credit to you for the self-correction though
saying that "gas" is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant <- that stuff can "catch fire" on its own. But even there - it needs to be mixed, so technically, one component requires the other to ignite.
Probably not great for eyes or noses or filtration systems either
Also a broken bit of lead could easily float into someone's eye or get aspirated.
and thin paper shavings = space kindling. the entire argument is fucking dumb.
perhaps the sovs gnawed their pencils sharp and consumed all the graphite fragments and shavings lol. good lil soviet space beavers
Genuine question. why did you choose to use "inflammable" instead of "flammable"?
Inflame was the original word for 'to ignite' - to set aflame, to set on fire. We still see if in metaphor, 'inflammatory argument' or 'inflamed passion', for example.
So an inflammable object was one you can inflame (or enflame). The word 'flammable' came about later, probably to reduce confusion for people who thought it mean 'un-flameable'.
These days we use flammable on labels for safety reasons, but inflame is still peppered throughout language in metaphor and medicine, and both are correct.
This is the most upvotes I think I have ever seen on a comment here.
Besides that, NASA wasn't the one that funded the research behind the pen, they bought the completed pens. The expenses for the research were funded by Fisher
NASA still foots the bill either way. In this arrangement, the cost of development is simply included in the price of the product plus a fixed profit margin. Such 'cost-plus' contracts are criticized because it eliminates competing for efficiency and incentivises contractors to make their solutions as complicated and expensive as possible.
Your points about a cost-plus contract have merit but aren’t applicable here because the pens weren’t developed under a contract at all. Paul Fisher of the Fisher Pen Company had started developing a pressurized pen before the space program even began (to develop a pen that could write in other orientations than on a desk), although learning of the concerns from the program gave him renewed impetus to solve the design. Fisher patented the design in 1966 after ten years of development and about $1 million in cost. Prior to the pens NASA had been purchasing special pencils at $128.89/each. The original purchase order for the pens bought 400 at $2.95/each.
The Soviet space program bought the pens in 1969, and besides the Americans they’re still used today by the Russian and Chinese space programs. You can buy one yourself for as little as $7 if you don’t care about it being refillable. On the one hand that’s a lot for a disposable pen, on the other hand that’s not terribly expensive for a pen that writes upside-down if you need that, and might not feel too bad if you’re prone to losing pens.
Except this wasn't a cost plus contract, this was NASA buying a thing at discount on the open market. In fact, the USSR paid the same discounted bulk price per pen that NASA did.
To add onto the other comment:
NASA wouldn't have to pay anything if the research didn't work out and maybe even avoided other companies who then weren't compensated for their efforts.
Plus, inhaling graphite dust since it doesn't fall doesn't sound fun.
Plus, graphite dust and electronics are also not a great combination.
NASA used crayons before those space pens, and iirc the pens were available for a while before they tried them
NASA used crayons before those space pens, and iirc the pens were available for a while before they tried them
this is partially correct; the missing pertinent bit - there was a crayon shortage due to the influx of marines recruited for the vietnam war (mmm crayola), forcing NASA to seek alternatives.
Also you DON'T FUCKING WANT GRAPHITE DUST FLOATING AROUND IN ZERO G
Why not? I'm not well versed in the theme. Would it be flammable?
edit: just saw another post mentioning this: lack of gravity, enter floating in the electronic, causing short circuits as main risk.
Also your body doesn't do a good job of breaking it down either. Id imagine that in your lungs would suck.
I have a piece of graphite in my leg from 7th grade still. I'm 33.
also, fucking pencil shavings?
pencil shavings contain graphite (great for getting into shit and shorting shit out) and thin paper (think, kindling)
did the russians gnaw the fucking things sharp? no? idiots...
This is inaccurate. Graphite is not flammable. It forms small particles that, mixed with air, could combust in a dust explosion, just like flour.
I'm probably just being dense but what's the difference between being flammable and being susceptible to combustion?
In technical safety terms, combustibles are harder to ignite than flammables. So diesel and olive oil are combustibles, for example, because neither of them give off enough ignitable vapour at room temperature. Ethanol does, so it gets classified as flammable, and you need to store and handle it more carefully than diesel. Then there's really horrible stuff like triethylborane which will catch fire upon meeting oxygen even at temperatures well below the freezing point of water
Of course in casual usage they mean the same thing
They’re referring to the relationship between surface area and combustion. Talc, for example, melts but does not burn. Talc powder can ignite if blown over an open flame.
You're not dense for asking a question. Without asking questions, it's Impossible to learn.
The flash point is different. The flash point is the temperature that is necessary to create enough vapor for the substance to ignite.
Flammable material has a low flash point, which means it catches on fire easily. Think gasoline. Combustibles need a higher initial temperature, but eventually they will burn and sustain the burning until running out. Think wood.
Apollo 1 resulted in a lot of improvements regarding fire safety.
People drag the Soviets for being reckless with the lives of their crews, but forget that the USA melted three men in a training exercise.
at least those three were known, acknowledged and not covered in secrecy.
we really have no idea how many the sov's lost in their rush to stay ahead / catch up to the moon landings. truly, there's no way to fucking know, even the cosmonauts themselves never knew the total extent.
maybe they both deserve to be dragged a bit eh? pfft
I’ve owned a fair few Fisher Space Pens throughout the years. It’s an interesting bit of space memorabilia that’s functional and affordable. It’s an impressive bit of engineering.
As a space nerd, I love the pen. As a pen guy…. There’s better options. The cartridge just doesn’t write as smooth as I like, nor is it a really bold, saturated line. For daily actual writing use, I use a Lamy Safari rollerball or a Pilot B2P.
They're small, but when you open them up, they're full-sized. It fits in my knockoff Ridge wallet. I buy blue cartridges because I hate signing stuff in black.
10/10 for me, but it's all about utility for me.
Think of how revolutionary crayola twistables would have been for NASA?
So they could have infinite chunks of broken crayan floating around them. I can never not break those no matter how lite I use rhem
Empires wasting resources on nonflammable space pens while the whole planet burns.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
