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.
The ink cartridges in some pens is pressurized.
What's next? That astronauts didn't actually drink Tang in space? All those glasses of orange drink just so I could be like them gone to waste?
Phoenix
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 ?
I want a pen that has a help desk in india.
He's writing in a space station that's pressurized and kept at around 20C. The 'space pen' was designed to work in a vacuum in a temperature range of something like -100C to +200C, as experienced on the lunar surface: try doing that with a $0.50 plastic ballpoint.
"Here I am floating in my tin can far above the world planet Earth is blue and my trusty pen is too!"
It's the surface tension propteries of the ink, commonly known as capillary action.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Have you ever had trouble writing upside down with a ballpoint anyways?
yes, I have. Or, as another poster said, on a vertical surface. Also, if I put a ballpoint pen upside-down in my trouser pocket, all the ink dribbles out and gives me a blue stain on my thigh.
Generally, I don't notice this until I'm in the shower the next morning, and mistake it for a big nasty bruise, especially if I've been out drinking the night before and can't quite remember if I fell over or not.
I'm still waiting for NASA to solve this problem.
evil math within Nature's Cubic Creation!
because they have multiple purposes. Imagine an electronic wire broke within the ISS: Using a pencil one can at least use the conducing graphite to link the two parts together again. I don't see you do this with a cheap (plastic) BIC-pen :=)
:)
Ofcourse, one can also break a pencil in two, and voila: TWO pencils, you colleague astronaut has one too now...
Third option, that a pen doesn't normally provide, is the fact that a pencil can be erased more easily without nasty chemicals. Easy if you want to wipe out the last log-entry in which you were a little drunk and have written down nasty things about the flight-captain.
When you need to draw a very fine line, one can sharpen the pencil to make it so. I don't see them sharpening a pen
Concluding: regardless of the truth of the "pen doesn't work in space but pencil does" story, it is still a much more versatile tool than a pen, so it "works" better....
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
would you trust your research to a pencil? i wouldn't. i'd have to write it in pen when i got home, so that when the pencil fades (like my physics notes from 3 years ago), i'd still have the pen copy.
I write code.
Surface tension is indeed the important factor, but what you're missing is this: although gravity is not needed for the pen to write, in space it's not working against you when you try to write upside down.
I guess in 1965-67 business and business leaders still had some integrety.
Fisher just developed the pens to be helpfull.
Of course having NASA use his pens was great advertising and did give them a great run in the comercial sector.
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
is how he got it past security. Does he have a nail file to? Someone should lock up this terrorist! Somebody call Ashcroft!
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Problem with a pencil is the graphite dust. Normal gravity, graphite dust isn't an issue, it gets mostly on the paper, you don't worry about that. Now, in space, that graphite dust lingers, gets into things, makes the environment not as friendly to be in as it could be. With a pen, this is much less of an issue, as the physics of writing are a lot different.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
The reason for using pressure in pens, it seems, is that surface tension alone may not be enough to pull a long column of ink through a narrow tube. If there is a little bubble in the column of ink, the surface tension is broken, and there is no way to pull ink past the bubble.
The problem of a bubble in the column of ink happens on land, too, not just in space. People deal with it by just throwing the pen away. Since cheap pens cost less than 15 cents, someone may develop the habit of throwing away pens without noticing what he is doing. If a bubble develops, it is usually after the pen has had considerable use, so there is little complaint.
In situations of varying temperature and outside air pressure, unpressurized pens may develop a bubble more easily. Pressurized ink cartridges are a little more reliable, and cost the manufacturer only a little more.
Pfft! who's the moron!
If we have the pen upside-down, the nib won't be on the paper!
Microgravity.
What happens to all the pencil shavings and eraser crumbs?
Chip H.
And that's not a good thing to have in an environment dependent on technology...
Billions of dollars have been siphoned to US technology companies, to precisely those companies in the districts of the senators and representative who voted for this "feckless welfare program." It has served the purpose it was designed for quite well. Are you some sort of Pinko Commie or what? ; )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Now according to the Snopes article, the main problem was tips breaking off pencils and floating around. Graphite dust would not have been a problem, because I believe they were using lead pencils.
(Granted, it would be an issue today if pencils are used in space, but in those days, it wasn't.)
~~~~~
Pet Peeve: Perscription drug advertising to the general public.
"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!"
See, space exploration is still teaching us new things. What a breakthrough!
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
You really could use this.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I learned how to write in school. But I don't think I have used that skill since then...
--Still waiting for that awsome sig to just leap out at me..--
...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).
You can easily experiment writing without gravity. Or didn't you guys buy Windows XP?
What's next? That astronauts didn't actually drink Tang in space? All those glasses of orange drink just so I could be like them gone to waste?
Those glasses of orange juice didn't to go waste. They went to your waist.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
This has been tested using a candle on (I believe) one of the first Shuttle missions in the early '80s. Essentially, the flame is a sphere, instead of the traditional oval-ish shape. As long as a slight air current is present (which is on a shuttle due to the ventilation system, and movement in general), the flame will remain lit. If the candle is placed in a sealed container, it will consume the oxygen in the immediate vicinity of the flame, then extinguish. Interestingly, if oxygen is reintroduced to the vicinity of the wick in a short period of time, the flame will reignite. The lack of air current prevents the wick from cooling below the point necessary to sustain combustion as quickly as it would in a traditional environment.
Children in the backseats don't cause accidents. Accidents in the back seats cause children.
A ball of fire that lasts until it uses up all available oxygen?
Yup. That's about right.
Well, duh, there's an easy solution. Turn the paper upside-down too!
Not to be Cross, but Captain Parker's use of a Waterman in orbit is no Bic deal.
Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
Don't you love how the amount of money we spent on this keeps increasing? I mean, at this rate, we'll have gone bankrupt several times over for a single pen!
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin