Probably not great for eyes or noses or filtration systems either
Comment on Pens in Space
Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
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.
Midnitte@beehaw.org 1 day ago
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Twist: you’re the filtration system.
Midnitte@beehaw.org 1 day ago
I guess we are in a way a filtration system that removes oxygen from the air…
exasperation@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Ok there Ongo Baglogian
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Also a broken bit of lead could easily float into someone’s eye or get aspirated.
NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 day ago
There is no way either side used lead pencils. Saying lead is in pencils is a very outdated thing, it’s all graphite these days.
Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
A sharp piece of graphite from a broken pen is not something you would want in your eyes either
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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
jqubed@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
The Soviets were using grease pencils IIRC before also switching to the Fisher Space Pen around 1969. The grease pencil eliminated the risk of graphite floating around but the writing quality isn’t great.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
If I remember correctly, the Soviet engines were a lot harder to short out, so pencils weren’t as big a problem in their spacecraft.
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
the Soviet engines were a lot harder to short out,
bwahaha this is idiotic. anyone familiar with the long litany of rocket failures out of baiknor knows their engines weren’t ‘harder to short out’ whatever silly shit you mean with it.
short out what? the alternator? bwahahahahaahahahaha
short out the fuse box? dear god, I’m dying here
copd@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Genuine question. why did you choose to use “inflammable” instead of “flammable”?
Manticore@lemmy.nz 1 day ago
Inflame was the original word for ‘to ignite’ (or flare up). But given English uses the un- and in- prefixes and modifiers, ‘flammable’ has been deemed less confusing, especially if English is not your native language
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 day ago
inflammation, inflame, inflammable
inflammable = easily ignited
Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 day ago
This is the most upvotes I think I have ever seen on a comment here.
ninja@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Image
Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 1 day ago
That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!
nyctre@lemmy.world 1 day ago
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.
glups@lemm.ee 17 hours ago
Credit to you for the self-correction though
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Image
Synonyms, true synonyms. No real difference between them (except don’t use inflammable in safety situations, for above reasons)
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
saying that “gas” is able to catch fire on its own is stretching it :) A gas mix typically still needs a spark, unlike: 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.
JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 day ago
It makes more sense if you think of it as enflammable. Indent and indebted at examples of this “in-” prefix. merriam-webster.com/…/flammable-or-inflammable
militaryintelligence@lemmy.world 1 day ago
United States education system
Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Flammable isn’t a word.
Just Americans got confused by it so it became a word.
Hexarei@programming.dev 17 hours ago
So then it is a word