Slashdot Mirror


Writing in Space with a Cheap Ballpoint Pen

Roland Piquepaille writes "Some days bring big surprises. Like many people, I always believed that it was impossible to write in space with ordinary pens because ink would not flow. So imagine my astonishment when I read Pedro Duque's diary from space this morning. Pedro Duque is an astronaut since 1992. Now, he's on board of the International Space Station (ISS) since October 18, 2003. And he's writing -- from space -- with a cheap ballpoint pen, like Russians apparently always did: 'So I also took one of our ballpoint pens, courtesy of the European Space Agency (just in case Russian ballpoint pens are special), and here I am, it doesn't stop working and it doesn't "spit" or anything.' Isn't it amazing? This summary contains more details and a photograph of Pedro Duque on board ISS." Note that NASA didn't go crazy developing a pen for space. Surface tension is the important factor for all pens, not gravity.

9 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. gravity doesn't matter? by lethalwp · · Score: 4, Interesting


    if gravity doesn't matter, explain me why you can't use a sheet of paper and a ballpoint pen on a wall for more than 5 minutes ?

  2. Space exploration in full retreat by amightywind · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Roland Piquepaille writes "Some days bring big surprises. Like many people, I always believed that it was impossible to write in space with ordinary pens because ink would not flow. So imagine my astonishment when I read Pedro Duque's diary from space this morning...

    In the 60's we longed to use space technology to explore other worlds, and did a great job of it. Then we decided to make spaceflight routine and do great science on orbital space stations. They would be used as stepping stones to the Moon and Mars we were told. What we got is an expensive, perpetual, and feckless welfare program for the exploration of triviality. In the 30 years since Apollo we have answered such pressing questions as: How long does it take to get sick in space while spinning on a gyroscope? Can spiders spin webs in zero g? Can ballpoint pens work in space? With the exception of planetary missions, the current space program is a complete waste.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  3. Re:Amazing Technology by angusr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The graphite dust won't linger long; even in microgravity it's going to end up somewhere due to air circulation, static charge attracting it to something, or a whole host of other mechanisms. It's most likely to end up in an astronaut's lungs or in the air filters. It's not really a problem in either location (your lungs handle worse every day thanks to internal combustion engines and everybody's dead skin) but what is more of a worry is that graphite is a conductor. While dust is unlikely to cause a problem, a whole broken point might be enough to cause a short.

    And that's not a good thing to have in an environment dependent on technology...

  4. Re:I think this is the explanation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I dont know about the US, but in India where we dont throw away pens that often (My dad believes that you should use a good "Hero" ink pen for life, and in general writing instruments are treated with some reverence), we just open up the pen, pull out the refill and blow into it. If even that doesnt work, remove the ball and the metal part holding it, blow air at back till ink comes out the other end and put the tip back on. Works everytime (remember to wipe ink off the hands and table).

  5. But, in a way, it *is* true.. by adeyadey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "We spent millions of dollars developing the Space Pen program. Know what the Russians did? They used a pencil."

    Its almost too neat not to be true, and in a way it is! Ok, in fact it was an independant company that spent $1 million on developing a "space" pen, and not NASA themselves, but in the end the US did spend the money, whereas the Russians were happy with the low-tech solution, although of course they took advantage of the high-tech solution once the money was spent.

    The above Russian/US comparison probably holds up better today than the 60's - currently the US is spending $3 billion/year on the (white elephant) Shuttle, whereas the Russians are keeping the ISS running at under $100 million a mission.

    Below is a related extract from a piece posted on www.space.com, by Robert Zubrin - an advocate of reform in the US space program - interesting reading...

    In the recent Columbia hearings, numerous members of congress continually decried the fact that the US space program is "stuck in Low Earth Orbit." This is certainly a serious problem. If it is to be addressed adequately, however, America's political leadership needs to reexamine NASA's fundamental mode of operation.

    Over the course of its history, NASA has employed two distinct modes of operation. The first, prevailed during the period from 1961-1973, and may therefore be called the Apollo Mode. The second, prevailing since 1974, may usefully be called the Shuttle Era Mode, or Shuttle Mode, for short.

    In the Apollo Mode, business is conducted as follows. First, a destination for human spaceflight is chosen. Then a plan is developed to achieve this objective. Following this, technologies and designs are developed to implement that plan. These designs are then built, after which the mission is flown.

    The Shuttle Mode operates entirely differently. In this mode, technologies and hardware elements are developed in accord with the wishes of various technical communities. These projects are then justified by arguments that they might prove useful at some time in the future when grand flight projects are initiated.

    Contrasting these two approaches, we see that the Apollo Mode is destination driven, while the Shuttle Mode pretends to be technology driven, but is actually constituency driven. In the Apollo Mode, technology development is done for mission directed reasons. In the Shuttle Mode, projects are undertaken on behalf of various internal and external technical community pressure groups and then defended using rationales. In the Apollo Mode, the space agency's efforts are focused and directed. In the Shuttle Mode, NASA's efforts are random and entropic.

    Imagine two couples, each planning to build their own house. The first couple decides what kind of house they want, hires an architect to design it in detail, then acquires the appropriative materials to build it. That is the Apollo Mode. The second couple polls their neighbors each month for different spare house-parts they would like to sell, and buys them all, hoping to eventually accumulate enough stuff to build a house. When their relatives inquire as to why they are accumulating so much junk, they hire an architect to compose a house design that employs all the knick-knacks they have purchased. The house is never built, but an adequate excuse is generated to justify each purchase, thereby avoiding embarrassment. That is the Shuttle Mode.

    In today's dollars, NASA average budget from 1961-1973 was about $17 billion per year. This is only 10% more than NASA's current budget. To assess the comparative productivity of the Apollo Mode with the Shuttle Mode, it is therefore useful to compare NASA's accomplishments between 1961-1973 and 1990-2003, as the space agency's total expenditures over these two periods were equal.

    Between 1961 and 1973, NASA flew the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Ranger, Surveyor, and Mariner missions, and did all the development for the Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager missions as well. In addition, t

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    1. Re:But, in a way, it *is* true.. by orac2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the choice of dates in not arbitrary

      I didn't say they were arbitrary, just inappropriate to answering the question of "How much does Apollo Mode cost?"

      Also, I agree it is clear that NASA today is not getting the biggest bang per buck possible -- but this is largely because of the dramatically lower year on year funding, something masked by the 1961-1973 window. This reduced funding meant (the shuttle is an excellent case in point) that high development cost but low operating cost designs had to be abandoned in favor of lower development cost but higher operating cost designs in order to get anything built at all.

      The collapse in funding guaranteed inefficiency and failure, in both the hardware and culture of NASA, so it's a little disengenious to ask why NASA can't do Apollo Mode stuff even though its funding today is comparable to the average over the entire 1961-1973 period.

      It's like filling a car's tank up at the start of a long journey and then only dribbling in a small amount of fuel every 50 miles or so. Even though the overall average fillup for the first and second halves of the journey is very similar (the big fillup at the start gets spread out over all the small fillups in the first half of the journey), you shouldn't be surprised that at the end of your, say 1,000 mile, journey you're out of gas, whereas at the 500 mile mark you still had a healthy reservoir. You could conclude that (a) your fuel efficiency had dropped or (b) including large fueling peaks in your averaging window can be misleading.

      If you're still uncertain, look at the funding graph on page 102 of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's Report. I think anyone would agree that after looking at that graph that using averages is an inappropriate tool to compare Apollo-Mode funding to Shuttle-Mode funding.

      --
      "Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
  6. Don't go knocking the "Space Pen"... by Charlie+Bill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...it truly is a thing of wonder. Not much biger than your standard NATO round, mine continues to write as it did the day I got it twelve years ago. (Obviously I'm not writing with it all that much, but a true testament to the ink used).

  7. The real rationale for the Space Pen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Was that it had 12 different (pressurized) ink color cartridges available. Back before astronauts were just using laptops, they had to color-code their reports. These days, they've dropped some of the stranger colors (e.g. turquoise), but they do make a very cool extra-fine with a tungsten ball, and a bold which is much wider than the average ballpoint. Plus it's nice to have a pen that's small enough to fit into your pants pocket, yet tough enough to sit on and small over and over

  8. Re:I think this is the explanation. by leeward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having travelled to India about 20 years ago, that kind of thing remains a strong memory. Coming from the US where we throw away all kinds of things without a second thought, I noticed that a scrap of paper with some empty space on it wasn't thrown away, but reused. And when someone lit a match for their own cigarette, cigarettes appeared from everywhere and that one match would result in maybe 20 lit cigarettes.