Talk:Writing in space

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 10 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nlky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2019 and 2 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmarti64, Sarah Katherine Barnes, Djewellw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

do they work or not?

quote:

"However, it is not well known that space pens are actually fake and do not work. They were first exposed to the public as fake news. "

--OK so they don't work.

Its thixotropic ink and vent-free cartridge release no significant vapor at common temperatures and low pressures. The ink is forced out by compressed nitrogen at a pressure of nearly 35 psi (240 kPa), and it functions at altitudes up to 12,500 feet (3800 m) and at temperatures from −30 to 250 °F (−35 to 120 °C). However, it is slightly more expensive than the aforementioned alternatives. It has been used by both NASA and Soviet/Russian astronauts on Apollo, Shuttle, Mir,[5] and ISS missions."

--Wait, what, now they do work?

--Is it just me or is this unclear?

--wle. Wlexxx (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Wlexxx (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)wle.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlexxx (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC) 

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Writing in space. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004224752/http://www.thewritersedge.com/faq.cfm to http://www.thewritersedge.com/faq.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review

The lead section does not address all of the issues discussed in the article. "the problems with writing in space conditions" are mentioned but not explained (zero-gravity is mentioned in the next sentence, but I would suggest explaining 'why' this presents a problem, and if there are any other problems). A link to a photo or article about the Fisher Space Pen is might be nice. Also, I would not use the word "cheaper" and suggest the more neutral term 'less expensive'.

Structurally, I would recommend starting with the section entitled: "Writing instruments specifically intended for space writing". "Mission Requirements" as a section header does not suggest a clear meaning for the content, and I might suggest re-naming that section.

Overall certain parts seem to read more like a narrative than a neutral information source. For example, in looking at the text: "While the Soyuz spacecraft had a 14.7 psi (101 kPa) design pressure, and could use its orbital module as an airlock, the orbital module would be deleted for planned lunar missions. In any case, a pen which was insensitive to pressure and temperature would eliminate the issue (including accidental depressurizations), provide a margin, and allow the ability to record during extravehicular activities. " I'm not sure "deleted" is the correct word in the first sentence. Some of the wording throughout the article such as "in any case" could be changed to something like 'For these reasons'. I would recommend checking the entire article for such revisions.

The article seems on topic, and covers aspects I did not know about writing in space. I imagine that eventually electronic solutions replaced physical writing instruments. I think a section on that would be a valuable addition.

Nlky (Adam) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlky (talk • contribs)

Adam's (Nlky) Peer Review

I also wanted to suggest additional information about how these technologies are developed on Earth.

Nlky (Adam) 23:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlky (talk • contribs)

The bulk of the content seems to be written by someone with a commercial interest

In particular, the arguments about graphite being a fire and electrical hazard are blown out of proportion, considering the very modest amounts of graphite that would actually be used. An astronaut/cosmonaut is not going to be writing the next "War and Peace" on paper - these days, anything intended for permanent record - e.g., logs of experiments in the Space Shuttle, etc. - would be recorded electronically, where physical material is not consumed. I've added a StackExchange (Chemistry) reference: graphite used for writing is mixed with clay during fabrication to help hold its shape, and would require temperatures of 1000-2000 C to combust. If the temperatures inside the cabin reach that level, the astronauts would be roasted alive before the graphite caught fire.

The bogus arguments in favor of dubious technologies for writing remind me of the scare in the 1980s when the Ames mutagen test showed a vast number of chemicals to be mutagens (and potential carcinogens). Bruce Ames, inventor of the test, was concerned that his test was being abused for scare-mongering, and showed that household foods (notably, grilled meats) were mutagenic according to his test. See Bruce_Ames#Ames_on_synthetic_carcinogens.

Prakash Nadkarni (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems a violation of WP:NOR. A reference about the temperature of flammability isn't enough; there are other potential concerns that interact (e.g., pure oxygen environment, microgravity allowing particles to stay airborne). And there's no reference for second point about electrical hazards. This needs an actual reference saying the dangers are overblown. Bennetto (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sharpening

The article refers to the pencil having no moving parts other than the sharpener. Given the subsequent references to the contamination risk posed by the pencil, it seems to me that the risk posed by sharpening should be addressed. That's bound to have a higher contamination risk than writing and it would be useful to know how this risk was contained. 2A02:C7F:8B41:8200:6C8B:6889:E846:B2BC (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)