On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:19:37PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > > However, there was at least one good reason that NASA chose not to > > use pencils: the wood and graphite shavings generated by sharpening > > a pencil would float in the air in microgravity, (1) being breathed > > in by the astronauts and (2) perhaps getting into the electronic > > equipment and causing short circuits (graphite being a conductor) or > > sparks, which would have been fatal in the pure oxygen atmosphere > > used prior to the Apollo 1 fire. > > OK, there's a way around *some* of those problems: use a mechanical > pencil.
In my experience, the graphite in a mechanical pencil breaks off more often than in a wooden pencil (probably because it is thinner, maybe there is a thick graphite mechanical pencil, but I've never used one). Also, the graphite "rod" seems to break easily INSIDE the pencil when it experiences an impact. Then you have to feed a new graphite rod (or piece of rod) into the tube. Getting the new graphite rod to drop into the tube relies on gravity in all the mechanical pencils I have used. I suppose you could spin yourself in a circle and point the pencil outward while you clicked if you were in micro-gravity, but it would be a pain. And you risk having the fragment of graphite that broke fly out the end of the pencil as the new piece comes in. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
