Urban myth I'm afraid. In reality, both the Soviets and NASA tried pencils at first but they become dangerous as bits of the lead break off and contaminate the capsule, getting into eyes and circuit boards (graphite being a conductor).Claire,
That quip about Stalin is rooted in history and practicality.
My boy was in the Navy a few years back and he came upon a "space age" (60's) joke about how we do things, east vs west.
When the space race started the "West", America and the high-tech revolution, spent millions (as I remember, it's been a while) to make a pen that would write upside down or in space.
The "East" Russia simply used pencils.
<snip>
" or am I missing something?
HOLY CRAP! That was great. I always took Hitler for the Sony type anyway, Axis and all.
Urban myth I'm afraid. In reality, both the Soviets and NASA tried pencils at first but they become dangerous as bits of the lead break off and contaminate the capsule, getting into eyes and circuit boards (graphite being a conductor).
The "space pen" was not developed by NASA, it was developed privately with no official money by Fisher Pens. Before the Soviets and NASA bought the Fisher pens they both used grease pencils. Perhaps surprisingly, a normal ball-point pen works fine in zero-G - it's only in a gravity that they won't work upside down - they work by capillary action and that works just fine in zero-G.
Unfortunately none of the links does work here in Germany,
our government is of the opinion that it would be better for
us not to see such "Hitler-stuff"
Der Untergang (The Downfall) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/This version is hysterical! So what movie is the clip originally from?
Someone posted this link on APUG earlier today, which might explain that line.Yeah, "I should have stayed with film" was hysterical. Can someone explain the Ken Rockwell line? I know he has a website and does equipment tests, but I don't get it. Thanks.
Take care,
Tom
Yeah, "I should have stayed with film" was hysterical. Can someone explain the Ken Rockwell line? I know he has a website and does equipment tests, but I don't get it. Thanks.
Take care,
Tom
Ken Rockwell has a tech blog that covers all the latest whiz-bang expensive disposable plastic shit, but he is also very level headed and intelligent about things, and by no means an idiotic digital evangelist or one of the most horrific pushers of rampant consumerism in photography:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm
You really have to read every word of these pages to get his whole message, and his humor. He is neither a film or a digital evangelist. He is simply focused on practical matters of making/taking/shooting (whatever...:rolleyespictures.
Ken is good guy and does a great job evaluating equipment (for pro or consumer) -- far better than what can be found on luminous landscape. He is all over the board and some of his reviews will seem contradictory, but that is the truth you'll find when evaluating the incredibly broad swath of available equipment. I've used his reviews for both professional and personal purchases and have never been disappointed.
I read LL for the pictures of $60,000 digital backs.
Porn at its finest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?