Probably not great for eyes or noses or filtration systems either
Comment on Pens in Space
Zerush@lemmy.ml 1 month 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 month ago
jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Twist: you’re the filtration system.
Midnitte@beehaw.org 1 month ago
I guess we are in a way a filtration system that removes oxygen from the air…
exasperation@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Ok there Ongo Baglogian
quediuspayu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Also a broken bit of lead could easily float into someone’s eye or get aspirated.
NuraShiny@hexbear.net 1 month 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 Saying lead is in pencils is a very outdated thing, it’s all graphite these days.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 month ago
A sharp piece of graphite from a broken pen is not something you would want in your eyes either
mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 month 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
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month 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 month 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
jqubed@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
copd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Genuine question. why did you choose to use “inflammable” instead of “flammable”?
Manticore@lemmy.nz 1 month 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 month ago
inflammation, inflame, inflammable
inflammable = easily ignited
Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 month ago
This is the most upvotes I think I have ever seen on a comment here.
ninja@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Image
Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 1 month ago
That is something I found weird, too. Inflammable and flammable mean the same thing!
nyctre@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Image
Synonyms, true synonyms. No real difference between them (except don’t use inflammable in safety situations, for above reasons)
glups@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Credit to you for the self-correction though
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 month 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 month 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 month ago
United States education system
Wanderer@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Flammable isn’t a word.
Just Americans got confused by it so it became a word.
Hexarei@programming.dev 1 month ago
So then it is a word