# ISS & NASA Flashlights Maglights?



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 5, 2007)

Several years ago I posted on CPF questions about hand held flashlights about the ISS and Space Shuttles.

In anticipation of the Atlantis flight later this week, I came across this ISS photo. They use MagLights on the ISS? Billions of bucks spent on this thing and they use a $20 Wal-Mart flashlight? WTH?

ISS Photos
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/hires/iss002e6723.jpg

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-105/hires/sts105-304-025.jpg

Look at her mouth! http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-2/hires/s104e5104.jpg

Another MagLight (Extreme rt corner) http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/iss014e09440.jpg

Another Mini (on belt) http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/s116e06068.jpg

Space Shuttle: 
PETZL Headlamp: 
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/s116e05289.jpg
http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/s116e05361.jpg
Mini MagLight on Astronaut's Leg: http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-116/hires/iss014e09478.jpg

Who is bringing all those batteries into space? It would seem that they would want something better than an Mag.


----------



## RoyJ (Jun 5, 2007)

The way I see it, and I'm sure I'm the minority here, we've gone so far into this hobby that we've actually forgotten the true purpose of a flashlight for the average guy out there.

Really, a Maglite, or even a $5 Eveready 2D light is all anyone ever NEEDS, 99.9% of the time, even in a space shuttle.

The chances of someone actually needing a M3/M6 while on a secret mission, parachuting into a swamp land at 0100 hours, is very slim. Even the SWAT / special military groups rarely see the kind of intense action as Hollywood portrays them.

So untill DOOM3 becomes a reality, where we need to hunt down mutated humans in a dark Mars space agency underground facility, Mags and $5 cheapies will be around for a long time to come.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 5, 2007)

Knowing the government, those Mags probably cost $10,000 apiece. :ironic:


----------



## Nyctophiliac (Jun 5, 2007)

Not too suprised to see the Mags at all, they are, for most people, the high end of torch design. I even have a sneaking admiration of the consistency of manufacture and the world wide distribution. The same thing goes for Petzl - light bright and practical.

I'm absolutely sure that with power being the difference between life and death when your orbiting our planet (What is it? 50 degrees between sunlight and shade??). The shuttle cabins are kept pretty dark - these shots must be flashed not ambient. Therefore they all need torches and there's not as much spent on the space programme as there once was in the fifties and sixties and seventies. 

Neither would they have much use for very bright torches as much of what they do will be close up. 

I doubt if they would even consider any lithium or lithium ion cell technology - straight Alkies all the way when you carry all your air with you! (Vent with flame in space = R.I.P.).

What really concerns me, what with health and safety at work and all, is that they appear to be eating out of tin cans - hope they carry Sticking plasters!!!

I wonder if they still have to nip outside for a smoke??



Be Lucy....


----------



## z96Cobra (Jun 5, 2007)

Mr. Zenon said:


> They use MagLights on the ISS? Billions of bucks spent on this thing and they use a $20 Wal-Mart flashlight? WTH?
> 
> Who is bringing all those batteries into space? It would seem that they would want something better than an Mag.



Why wouldn't they use Mag Lites? Now matter how much they get bashed around here, they are still strong, reliable, and most importantly, FUNCTIONAL under pretty much ANY environment/conditions. It doesn't get any "simpler" than a Mag. No electronics, no fancy bulbs or batteries, just proven SIMPLE technology. I'd be willing to bet that about 99.9% of all people on here started out with a Mag. No one disagrees that there are a lot better lights out there than a mag, but for most people (not CPF'ers) a Mag is all they will ever need. I EDC a SureFire U2 and an L4 (and now also my P2D!), and I'm not going to bash the Mags because they are still good lights. I do have 2 Mag Chargers, one in my car and another in my truck, plus numerous other 3D's and Mini Mag variants. 

Just my $.02
Roger


----------



## DM51 (Jun 5, 2007)

Very interesting. One major consideration for them is weight. It costs $$$$$$ in fuel to get every ounce of weight up into space. You would think they would go for something with the best possible power/weight ratio. And for the ISS, definitely a rechargeable (NiCad for safety?) to minimize weight in batteries.


----------



## RedLED (Jun 5, 2007)

Well, you would automatically think they would have some mega dollar custom light, however, think for a minute how reliable and simple a MAG light is.

Does anyone know if they are LED, also, what do they take to do service outsied the station in space?

Anyone notice there is quite a bit of velcro up there?

Best,

Redled


----------



## Jumi (Jun 5, 2007)

Those pics were taken 2001, there were not much at that time.
Those 3 led petzl were quite new.

They may use some other lights now.

Juha


----------



## RebelRAM (Jun 5, 2007)

The Mini-Mags looked modified to me. Either with rubber grippy sleeves or velcro, I couldn't tell for sure. Also on one mini-mag it looked like there was some sort of gold ring between the bezel and body. Not sure what that would be for on a mini-mag though because of the way the switch works.

Also FWIW, the astronauts are issued Victorinox SAKs, the Craftsman model I think. You would think by now they would be issued a Leatherman or something. Afterall, EDC weight shouldn't be an issue in space right?


----------



## DM51 (Jun 5, 2007)

LOL. I love the idea of an astronaut fixing a $50,000 piece of state-of-the-art hi-tech equipment with a Leatherman, lighting it with a Minimag held in his teeth.


----------



## Bravo25 (Jun 5, 2007)

You would think in conatained oxygen rich environment like the ISS they would use something other than just a plain MAG.


----------



## SilverFox (Jun 5, 2007)

Hello Dm51,

That is funny...  

Tom


----------



## Flying Turtle (Jun 5, 2007)

Maybe CPF and Arc could team up and make a gift of some nice Arc-P's to NASA in an effort to enlighten them.

Geoff


----------



## orionlion82 (Jun 5, 2007)

i am surprised at the weight issue as well. 
maglights - hey, its a dollar waiting on a dime. 

no Ti? 

for the love of god, a minimag dosnt weigh much, but as i recall every POUND of weight on the space shuttle costs literally a POUND of GOLD to launch... 

really, i would rather have them get high-dollar Ti lights once and forever,and use old-school-lightwieght carbon batteries. "heavy duties" 

no taxation without representation - you know...

man, can one of our Ti flashlight gods make nasa a light for each shuttle and save the taxpayers more than the lights are worth as a charity effort? or maybe as a group effort? 

im pretty sure i would rather pay for carbon batteries and a TI light than a mag with alkalines to get shot in space over and over... but as an initial proposition, it dosnt sound too-entirely daft...


----------



## elgarak (Jun 5, 2007)

Bravo25 said:


> You would think in conatained oxygen rich environment like the ISS they would use something other than just a plain MAG.


Can't find a link on the fly, but both the shuttle and the ISS use a nitrogen/oxygen mix of fairly normal pressure. They're not oxygen-rich.

For Apollo, they used a pure oxygen atmosphere, since it is much easier to control and maintain a one-gas atmosphere than a two-gas one. For long-term stay, however, the pure oxygen has health and technical problems, which is why they switched.


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 5, 2007)

Get me one of these NASA Spacelights..

"A second example of portable lighting is the EVA flashlight, shown in Figure 14.4.4.1-2. The light is mounted on a flexible neck and a mirror is provided to further aid visibility into inaccessible areas."

http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/images/Section14/Image372.gif

Source http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section14.htm#_14.6_EVA_TOOLS,

Technical Information
Part number	10172-20561-02
Weight	0.13 kg (0.26 lb)
Battery	Two AA alkaline wrapped with Teflon and Kapton, 1.5 V each
Battery life	2 yr
Lamp	Standard flashlight bulb
Operation	Rotate bulb housing
Stowage	Middeck locker
Dimensional data
A	30 cm
(12 in) true length
B	3.56 cm
(1.40 in)


----------



## batman (Jun 5, 2007)

NASA did away with pure oxygen environments after the Apollo 1 disaster. 



elgarak said:


> Can't find a link on the fly, but both the shuttle and the ISS use a nitrogen/oxygen mix of fairly normal pressure. They're not oxygen-rich.
> 
> For Apollo, they used a pure oxygen atmosphere, since it is much easier to control and maintain a one-gas atmosphere than a two-gas one. For long-term stay, however, the pure oxygen has health and technical problems, which is why they switched.


----------



## elgarak (Jun 5, 2007)

batman said:


> NASA did away with pure oxygen environments after the Apollo 1 disaster.


Only on the ground and during launch. Even then, it was still 60% oxygen (compared to the normal 21% in air). They would slowly change to 100% oxygen in the first part of the flight. During most of the flight and on the Moon it was still pure O2.

By comparison, ISS and shuttle use normal sea-level atmospheric pressure and oxygen content.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jun 5, 2007)

orionlion82 said:


> i am surprised at the weight issue as well.
> maglights - hey, its a dollar waiting on a dime.
> 
> no Ti?
> ...




Complete waste of titanium. Aluminum is lighter anyway. Save the titanium for high stress parts that need the strength.


----------



## tebore (Jun 5, 2007)

DM51 said:


> LOL. I love the idea of an astronaut fixing a $50,000 piece of state-of-the-art hi-tech equipment with a Leatherman, lighting it with a Minimag held in his teeth.



Imagine him doing that outside. It'd suck if he dropped his light, how is he gonna pick it up from inside the suit. I can just imagine an Astronaut have a "Doh" moment.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 5, 2007)

I got a buddy that works for Nasa...

I'll pick his brain.


----------



## RoyJ (Jun 5, 2007)

tebore said:


> Imagine him doing that outside. It'd suck if he dropped his light, how is he gonna pick it up from inside the suit. I can just imagine an Astronaut have a "Doh" moment.


 
Can't really "drop" your light in space unless you give it an initial velocity (i.e. throw it away), which the astronaut would have to be pretty stupid to do.


----------



## orionlion82 (Jun 5, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> Complete waste of titanium. Aluminum is lighter anyway. Save the titanium for high stress parts that need the strength.


 yeah, im allways under the assumption its lighter... and im constantly wrong about it. ill learn eventually.


----------



## tebore (Jun 5, 2007)

RoyJ said:


> Can't really "drop" your light in space unless you give it an initial velocity (i.e. throw it away), which the astronaut would have to be pretty stupid to do.


 
It'll just float away. But good luck trying to put the light back in your mouth once it comes out free floating in the suit.


----------



## z96Cobra (Jun 6, 2007)

FWIW, not all the supplies go up with the Shuttle. Most supplies come by Russian supply ships, so the cost/weight issue is probably not nearly as high as if it was coming up with the Shuttle.

Also, about the Mini-Mags being modified, it looks to me like the blue stripe around the head is Velcro. In the one pic where it is in the guys leg pouch, it appears to be secured by Velcro.

Roger


----------



## dts71 (Jun 6, 2007)

Jumi said:


> Those pics were taken 2001, there were not much at that time.
> Those 3 led petzl were quite new.
> 
> They may use some other lights now.
> ...


 
Actually, the last 5 picture links by Mr. Zenon was from STS-116 that was up in december 2006. 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/116_status_search_agent_archive_1.html

I'm slightly disappointed my self to see that they sent up those heavy mags but I guess there is no reason to send em back now...


----------



## DM51 (Jun 6, 2007)

PBJS says he has a buddy in NASA - maybe this is CPF's opportunity to educate NASA and get the first CPF-modded light in space!


----------



## firefly99 (Jun 6, 2007)

Mr. Zenon said:


> They use MagLights on the ISS? Billions of bucks spent on this thing and they use a $20 Wal-Mart flashlight?



The space shuttle WAS cutting edge technology Twenty years ago. NASA was reported in the recent years, to have a hard time sourcing for spare parts. 

Why are you surpised to see the Maglights ? As mentioned by other users, the Mag is simple and reliable. Maybe NASA guys has the same ideas as us, the Mag can be use as a club against any ailens.


----------



## BIGIRON (Jun 6, 2007)

May be an urban legend (or maybe galactic legend?) but it goes like this:

NASA spent millions developing a pen that would write in a weightless vacuum environment. The Russians just used pencils.


----------



## Bravo25 (Jun 6, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> May be an urban legend (or maybe galactic legend?) but it goes like this:
> 
> NASA spent millions developing a pen that would write in a weightless vacuum environment. The Russians just used pencils.


 
And that makes perfect sense. At least to NASA


----------



## Lmtfi (Jun 6, 2007)

Toohotruk said:


> Knowing the government, those Mags probably cost $10,000 apiece. :ironic:




Quite the opposite.

See? The government buys an inexpensive, off-the-shelf light that meets their needs to contain costs and someone will try to construe it in a bad way.

Shame.


----------



## Lmtfi (Jun 6, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> May be an urban legend (or maybe galactic legend?) but it goes like this:
> 
> NASA spent millions developing a pen that would write in a weightless vacuum environment. The Russians just used pencils.



NASA may have been concerned with loose graphite particles floating inside the spacecraft. IIRC graphite is conductive. Getting some of that inside a panel could be bad juju.


----------



## Stereodude (Jun 6, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> NASA spent millions developing a pen that would write in a weightless vacuum environment. The Russians just used pencils.


Urban legend...

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp


----------



## orionlion82 (Jun 6, 2007)

Lmtfi said:


> NASA may have been concerned with loose graphite particles floating inside the spacecraft. IIRC graphite is conductive. Getting some of that inside a panel could be bad juju.



not to mention graphite EATS Aluminum...


----------



## orionlion82 (Jun 6, 2007)

Lmtfi said:


> Quite the opposite.
> 
> See? The government buys an inexpensive, off-the-shelf light that meets their needs to contain costs and someone will try to construe it in a bad way.
> 
> Shame.



*not shame!* 

America isnt a "lay down and accept what people say is good" kind of place.

see: boston tea party, and revolutionary war. our CORE DNA is questioning the norm. stop that, and we might as well succeed to the queen, or china, or the angry people in hot places with ak47's and lots of bombs. 

we had better question nasa at every chance we get!

we had better make sure that a minimag is the best and most practical light sent into space. (being cost effective is a win-win too) 
democracy is about having a say. participating. 

if you want to accept everything you are told, and not have a voice, 
you can sail south from key west. 
youll find paradise 90 miles later.


----------



## Lmtfi (Jun 6, 2007)

orionlion82 said:


> *not shame!*
> 
> America isnt a "lay down and accept what people say is good" kind of place.
> 
> .



Okay - so you subscribe to unfounded accusations of government waste, fraud and abuse without a shred of fact?


----------



## Bravo25 (Jun 6, 2007)

Juat because your paranoid doesn't mean their *not* out to get you.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 6, 2007)

Just sent an email to my buddy. Should know something by this time tomorrow night.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 6, 2007)

Lmtfi said:


> Quite the opposite.
> 
> See? The government buys an inexpensive, off-the-shelf light that meets their needs to contain costs and someone will try to construe it in a bad way.
> 
> Shame.


 
I was joking for the most part. :nana: 

But, it is hard to get that extremely high priced Shuttle toilet seat (can't remember the cost, but it was astronomical), of many years ago out of the memory banks. And having worked for a government agency, I have personally witnessed the appalling waste of taxpayer dollars firsthand. 

I wasn't trying to start an argument here. :duck:


----------



## jmw19 (Jun 7, 2007)

orionlion82 said:


> not to mention graphite EATS Aluminum...



Ummm, I think you mean mercury. Mercury allows aluminum to oxidize (think rust), which is why mercury thermometers aren't allowed on airplanes (aluminum skins and frames). 
The danger comes from the fact that the mercury isn't consumed in the reaction, so a tiny drop, given enough time, could result in many pounds of aluminum being turned into oxides. 

Graphite, on the other hand, can be used to reinforce aluminum (as carbon fibers). Again, check for metal matrix composites for more than you ever wanted to know about them. Chances are very good these are in use in plenty of airplanes, though probably military due to the high cost of production.


----------



## Stillphoto (Jun 7, 2007)

I think as flashaholics we're just bummed to see they aren't using some uber-cool flashlight that we can't get our hands on. Take, for example, Emerson's NASA-only knife.


----------



## Reid (Jun 7, 2007)

Maybe *Fenix* could bequeath a case of their great little alkaline-powered lights to NASA.

What good and fair advertising slogan then results for them?


Guesses? 




___________
Waste: government agencies and their employees waste essentials in times of plenty. Human nature. Inalterable.

OTOH, when things were/are perceived as 'tight', everyone does and did pull together. Recall the WWII austerity programs, etc.

edit: I was thinking more of normal individuals and not freebooters, especially corporations,
of which, today....


----------



## orionlion82 (Jun 7, 2007)

Reid said:


> Maybe *Fenix* could bequeath a case of their great little alkaline-powered lights to NASA.
> 
> What good and fair advertising slogan then results for them?
> 
> ...



Fenix aint there yet. - by a long shot. 
"authoritative general use by civillians" sure. 
anything more is 10 or probably 20 years down the road for various reasons. 

----

JMW19: 
and yes, graphite DOES eat aluminum. not on a scale like mercury, but its still a very bad thing! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite
see: "detailed properties"....

...and LMFTI: i would never imply that there were any waste, fraud, or abuse taking place by the government. that sort of thing would never happen in america, the shining example of democracy in the world. 
the citizens would never allow it. right?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 7, 2007)

Buddy hasn't anything to do with ISS, but will ask around. No answer just yet.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 8, 2007)

It would be a helluva coup for CPF if we could get NASA to take one of our guys' lights into space!


----------



## firefly99 (Jun 8, 2007)

BIGIRON said:


> May be an urban legend (or maybe galactic legend?) but it goes like this:
> 
> NASA spent millions developing a pen that would write in a weightless vacuum environment. The Russians just used pencils.



The part about the Russians just using pencils is true. Think NASA comission a company to develop and build the fisher space pen.


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 8, 2007)

7:38PM EST Launch for today.

Weather looks iffy...

Coverage has started on NASA-TV.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

SureFire should partner with NASA to develop a "Space Light". 

The marketing potential would be huge for SureFire.


----------



## Katdaddy (Jun 8, 2007)

RoyJ said:


> The way I see it, and I'm sure I'm the minority here, we've gone so far into this hobby that we've actually forgotten the true purpose of a flashlight for the average guy out there.
> 
> Really, a Maglite, or even a $5 Eveready 2D light is all anyone ever NEEDS, 99.9% of the time, even in a space shuttle.
> 
> ...


 

I agree. They are not going to need 800 lumens to work on something in the shuttle!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 8, 2007)

No word from buddy yet. 

And yes, I suppose I could do a LOT of what I need with a 2D Incandescent light.

But my little Fenix P1 made a guy with a 2L Twin Task say today "man that's bright!" I of course told him that "there are even brighter LEDs now".

I can hardly wait to get the MTE 1AA SSc!!!!


----------



## Mike 208 (Jun 9, 2007)

My first impression is that the lights are the Brinkman "Legend" 2AA (has a rubber sleeve on the bezel and body).

Could be wrong.


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Jun 9, 2007)

Those are pretty clearly Maglites. The weight in bulbs and batteries must cost a fortune.


----------



## LukeA (Jun 9, 2007)

I would think NASA would be jumping all over LED lights, even if just to save the cost of carrying extra mag bulbs up into space. (taking something into space costs about $10,000/lb.)


----------



## GarageBoy (Jun 9, 2007)

Fisher developed the pen first and submitted to NASA

I think they should get UK 4AAs. Intrinsicaly safe, BRIGHT, cheap, Lightweight and long runtime


----------



## enLIGHTenment (Jun 10, 2007)

Several NASA people who work on the ISS and shuttle programs participate on nasaspaceflight.com. Would-be CFP evangelists could try their luck over there.


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 11, 2008)

With STS-124 up there now, anyone see any new lights?

Maybe my UA2 is up there someplace...


----------



## MikeSalt (Jun 11, 2008)

Bearing in mind the enormous cost of sending resources into space, I am surpirsed at the use of Maglites.

A Surefire E1L or E2L would be a good power+runtime to weight ratio. And supposing the ISS lost heating power, the lithium chemistry would keep the lights working for as long as it takes to restore power. Space is very, very cold. Then again, is lithium chemistry stable enough to take up there?

Mike


----------



## TONY M (Jun 11, 2008)

LukeA said:


> I would think NASA would be jumping all over LED lights, even if just to save the cost of carrying extra mag bulbs up into space. (taking something into space costs about $10,000/lb.)


True it seems like madness to take up a D cell Mag when they could do so much better and save lots of money (the TAXPAYERS MONEY!). I half imagined NASA to be using space-age, lightweight, super efficient wonder lights. It is 2008 after all...


----------



## MikeSalt (Jun 11, 2008)

When you bear in mind how old some of NASA's technology is, this comes as no surprise. The shuttles should have been written-off years ago. They are far too old for lives to depend on. They have to replace thermal tiles every mission they go on these days.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jun 11, 2008)

I don't see anything wrong with that... I still use my AA minimag all the time with a nite-ize drop in.

Look at their environment... its ALL shiny/white reflective metals and plastics and glass. Nothing is more than 10 feet away. Low-lumen, medium Lux, long run-time torches excel in this kind of environment. Anything higher than ~65 Lumens would blind the user, or at th every least impair their vision with green dots and over-dialted eyes. I can't imagine they would want to burden themselves with battery changes every other hour.

Given the explosive history of Lithium Ion batteries, I wouldn't be surprised if CR123 and RCR123 use is forbidden on a shuttle. Wouldn't surprise me if alkaline batteries are standard NASA issue as a result.

In that application its more important to pick the right tool for the job, rather than picking the tool that looks better on paper or boasts the best performance specs. Maglites are probably one of the cheapest USA made lights too


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 11, 2008)

Its difficult to say whether or not lithium primaries would be the best choice of battery for NASA. On one hand it provides good power to weight and cold weather performance but on the other hand there's a fire risk and venting may release toxic fumes that the astronauts wouldn't be able to get rid of.

If alkalines were the only choice then something like the 2AA mag LED doesn't sound like such a bad choice. No clickie to malfunction too. Some of the new LED Lensers with the Cree emitter might also be a good choice. It's a shame there aren't any high end production lights that use standard batteries.


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 11, 2008)

Non-qualified Lithium batteries are prohibited on STS/ISS. 

All iPods carried aboard must be disassembled by NASA and have their batteries removed before flight. They use a Belkin AA battery back for alkaline use. Charging is only permitted with approved hardware. I assume approved hardware must be subjected to a rigorous test plan.

STS-124/ISS photos:
iPod Spotted: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/242166main_work_full.jpg
Note the iPod 2G nano (silver) on the right wall with Belkin AA pack and Sony speakers.

Mag 4D Spotted: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/238614main_instructions_full.jpg
Look through the hatch on the right side, upper corner.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 12, 2008)

Very interesting thread. :thumbsup:


Especially if you happen to be a Flashaholic !

:twothumbs
_


----------



## kts (Jun 12, 2008)

COOL thread, and nice pics. :thumbsup:

A Fenix LOD Q4 would be the best choice..too bad for u surefire boys that lithiums is banned in space :nana:


----------



## rizky_p (Jun 12, 2008)

i can imagine if they were to send a flashaholic into ISS, he would bright ALL his flashlights and forgot the spacesuit 

The mag in the ISS i think is a 623. :nana:


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 12, 2008)

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/235973main_s124e005444_hires.jpg

"AA" black Mag on STS-124 (lower right corner)


----------



## gottawearshades (Jun 12, 2008)

This is an interesting thread.

I'm kind of surprised that they are not equipped with plastic, no-spark, explosion-proof lights.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 12, 2008)

gottawearshades said:


> This is an interesting thread.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that they are not equipped with plastic, no-spark, explosion-proof lights.



Aluminum doesn't spark. Also, the atmosphere is not explosive in space vehicles.


----------



## gallagho (Jun 12, 2008)

I guess it's a case of as they used to say about IBM.

No one ever got fired for buying a Maglite...

Owen


----------



## Chrontius (Jun 12, 2008)

monkeyboy said:


> Its difficult to say whether or not lithium primaries would be the best choice of battery for NASA. On one hand it provides good power to weight and cold weather performance but on the other hand there's a fire risk and venting may release toxic fumes that the astronauts wouldn't be able to get rid of.
> 
> If alkalines were the only choice then something like the 2AA mag LED doesn't sound like such a bad choice. No clickie to malfunction too. Some of the new LED Lensers with the Cree emitter might also be a good choice. It's a shame there aren't any high end production lights that use standard batteries.



I'd lean toward a Nite-Ize cluster with Eneloop for that environment, honestly.
And maybe some kind of overkill thing that could be used for Morse code signaling to the ground if I had to get out and walk. ^_^



Mr. Zenon said:


> STS-124/ISS photos:
> iPod Spotted: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/242166main_work_full.jpg
> Note the iPod 1G nano (silver) on the right wall with Belkin AA pack and Sony speakers.



Unless you mean the back, 1G nanos only came in black and white.


----------



## Illum (Jun 12, 2008)

so whats this about?


DaFABRICATA said:


>



they use surefires on the shuttle but maglites on the ISS?! I guess the decision was based on international popularity:shrug:


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 12, 2008)

Keep in mind that the money-everywhere NASA of yesteryear has long come and gone - NASA's motto today is "cheaper, faster and better", and they adhere to it; The Mars Viking mission of the 1970's cost one billion dollars, the recent Pathfinder mission to the same place cost roughly a quarter of that. If you look around EBay, you'll find computer parts from the 1980's being sold with some mention in the sale of "attn NASA" or something similar - this is because some of the hardware in the 1980's-era space shuttles actually uses 1980's-era computer components (8086/8 processors, 8" floppies [!], etc).

So it's no surprise that when it comes to flashlights for astronauts, they go with simplicity and bang-for-the-buck, which is the Mag's strong suit. An aversion to lithium batteries and glass parts would put most flashlights out of the running. 

A better modern alternative could be engineered; something along the lines of Surefire's G2 with an LED and UCL lens, powered by a single C cell.. But then it'd have to be as inexpensive as the Maglite..


----------



## Marduke (Jun 12, 2008)

It's actually pretty funny. Many of the computer parts used in components such as the solid rocket boosters are vintage, and when they need replacements, NASA has to shop on eBay for people selling their old antique computer junk.

True story, that's where some of it comes from.


----------



## Illum (Jun 12, 2008)

Marduke said:


> It's actually pretty funny. Many of the computer parts used in components such as the solid rocket boosters are vintage, and when they need replacements, NASA has to shop on eBay for people selling their old antique computer junk.
> 
> True story, that's where some of it comes from.



since the shuttles from the 80s, its very likely that many of the amplification devices onboard might actually be "tube quality"



If so, it can eliminate alot of redundant systems that would otherwise be critical for ICs, surge protection for example


----------



## Marduke (Jun 12, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> since the shuttles from the 80s, its very likely that many of the amplification devices onboard might actually be "tube quality"
> 
> If so, it can eliminate alot of redundant systems that would otherwise be critical for ICs, surge protection for example



You might enjoy this little bit of info
http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/


----------



## Noxonomus (Jun 12, 2008)

Chrontius said:


> Unless you mean the back, 1G nanos only came in black and white.



Actually its a mini not a nano the headphone jack is in the wrong place.

I find it fascinating although not very surprising that NASA would dismantle the ipods and make them use external power supplies, what surprises me is that they would rather carry batteries than hook them up to the rest of the system like they do the laptops.


----------



## ltiu (Jun 12, 2008)

On earth, if the lights go out, you have your flashlights to the rescue. In space, if the lights go out, you have more important matters to worry about ... life support!


----------



## ltiu (Jun 12, 2008)

Mr. Zenon said:


> Non-qualified Lithium batteries are prohibited on STS/ISS.
> 
> All iPods carried aboard must be disassembled by NASA and have their batteries removed before flight. They use a Belkin AA battery back for alkaline use. Charging is only permitted with approved hardware. I assume approved hardware must be subjected to a rigorous test plan.
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/242166main_work_full.jpg



I suppose the lithium ion batteries in those laptops in the picture are also taken away?


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 13, 2008)

The laptops are approved hardware from IBM. They are modified by NASA/IBM. They are not off the shelf laptops and require specialized power supplies costing a reported $1.5 million each. I am fairly certain that NASA does not permit off the shelf IBM/Lenovo batteries to charge. 

Note the power supply feeding this ThinkPad (top center). Not what you find at Lenovo.com for $59.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/238614main_instructions_full.jpg

Older article about this.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213

An excellent NASA article about using off the shelf rechargeable batteries in ISS/STS:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

NASA is very aware of the Dell/Sony battery issues that have occurred in the past 10 years. Having a battery explode in space could be a catastrophic event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmPm-YV9vdA&feature=related

As to the on-board computers, all mission critical flight computers are custom built IBM AP-101(s) systems. They have been upgraded several times, with the most recent updates about 7 years ago when the switch to glass LCD cockpits were made. There are 5 main computers aboard the shuttle, 4 using the same software, 1 using software from a completely different developer. All 5 are synchronized and must compute the same answer. If one computer is giving a different answer, the remaining computers "vote" out the bad system. And no, they are not running Windows of any type. 

The laptops you see in ISS/STS are used for experiments, email, personal use, scheduling, inventory, and other uses where failure would be an acceptable risk. Having a ThinkPad running Windows blue-screen during launch, docking, re-entry, landing, or other critical maneuver could lead to loss of the vehicle. 

M.I.T. has an excellent FREE iTunes PodCast audio course on the Space Shuttle. This lecture series details aspects of the design, construction, and flight of the Shuttle . The people giving the lectures are the ones who designed, tested, controlled, and flew the Shuttle.

Episode16: Guidance, Navigation, and Control (iTunes required)
http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects...298344618.01298344621.1300546236?i=1549064685

Link to the entire PodCast series: http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/mit.edu.1298344618

And yes.. I like flashlights and space.

That said, I'd like to see SureFire make a Space Light using AA batteries, and qualified for space flight. Hey.. they are going to the moon again with Project Constellation, how about a new flashlight design for these astronauts to match their new spaceship. SF.. How about offering to make a NASA light for the Constellation Program. The advertising would be out of this world.


----------



## LukeA (Jun 13, 2008)

Noxonomus said:


> Actually its a mini not a nano the headphone jack is in the wrong place.
> 
> I find it fascinating although not very surprising that NASA would dismantle the ipods and make them use external power supplies, what surprises me is that they would rather carry batteries than hook them up to the rest of the system like they do the laptops.



Umm...That's a 4G, not a mini or any generation of nano. The iPod is all about portability, chaining it to the system would defeat its purpose, especially for private listening while working.


----------



## Burgess (Jun 13, 2008)

Yes . . . .


I well remember how *Hasselblad* always boasted

about being selected by NASA for the Space Flights.



You can't BUY that kinda' favorable publicity.


_


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 13, 2008)

This is my favorite Shuttle/iPod picture. 

A 4G iPod on the dashboard of Endeavour. I use this as my desktop picture.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-123/hires/iss016e032313.jpg

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/03/15/ipods-rock-the-space-shuttle/


----------



## loszabo (Jun 13, 2008)

Great post! "Why do you carry a flashlight? Because astronauts do as well..." Thank you, CPF!

I'd love to have those cargo trousers with the three velcro strips. Looks like a cross-over of Woolrich Elite / 5.11 and astronaut spacesuits...


I do not understand, why they are not allowed to transport lithium cells in secure transport containers...?


----------



## MKLight (Jun 13, 2008)

What about the Photon II Microlight? Photon advertises it as being in space and they use lithium coin cells.

EDIT: In regards to Mr. Zenon's Post #61, I guess those are qualified lithium batteries?


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 13, 2008)

MKLight said:


> What about the Photon II Microlight? Photon advertises it as being in space and they use lithium coin cells.
> 
> EDIT: In regards to Mr. Zenon's Post #61, I guess those are qualified lithium batteries?



Interesting. I was aware that the Photon's visited MIR and upon further Googling, noticed that the Photon was indeed approved by NASA for STS use. I guess it passed whatever tests they threw at it. Maybe the small battery size has something to do with it?


----------



## MKLight (Jun 13, 2008)

I'm not sure. Hopefully someone else knows. I remember reading somewhere that the design was chosen because of its simple design - momentary operation with a permanent-on slide switch. I don't remember reading anything about its batteries, but the website (www.photonlight.com) and possibly the parent company (LRI) highly recommends the Energizer brand. Maybe Energizer and NASA have some sort of relationship...although of there was a relationship, I would think it would be with Duracell since Duracell advertises relationships like those...then again is only advertising/marketing...


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 14, 2008)

An open letter to Mr. P.K.,

How about a NASA certified light? The Constellation Program will need flashlights.


----------



## Lit Up (Jun 14, 2008)

monkeyboy said:


> If alkalines were the only choice then something like the 2AA mag LED doesn't sound like such a bad choice.



And I see they now have more to choose from than just black and gray. I saw red and blue versions the other night.


----------



## etc (Jun 15, 2008)

Are they using the original incan mags or the newer, LED miniMags?

If the latter, that's not so bad, they are decent lites, but if the former - wow. That thing was so bad and constantly kept destroying the bulbs. It was almost how many bulbs per set of batteries.

The incan minimag drove me crazy and was the original reason why I switched to LEDs... StreamLight Jr. that replaced it was light years ahead of it in all ways.



z96Cobra said:


> Why wouldn't they use Mag Lites? Now matter how much they get bashed around here, they are still strong, reliable, and most importantly, FUNCTIONAL under pretty much ANY environment/conditions. It doesn't get any "simpler" than a Mag. No electronics, no fancy bulbs or batteries, just proven SIMPLE technology.
> 
> 
> Roger


----------



## etc (Jun 15, 2008)

Mr. Zenon said:


> Mag 4D Spotted: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/238614main_instructions_full.jpg
> Look through the hatch on the right side, upper corner.



That is utterly amazing. NO way to tell if it's the olde incan or the newer LED type.


----------



## loszabo (Jun 15, 2008)

kts said:


> too bad for u surefire boys that lithiums is banned in space :nana:



Yup, NASA is going down... Funny, the govt. equips SF operators with best there is, but not astronauts. At least they issued a few Emerson knives to a few NASA/ISS astronauts.

25 years ago space exploration was a huge media-thing. Today...? :sigh:


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 15, 2008)

1) The most complex machine ever built by man. (source: NASA)
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/21stCenturyShuttle.pdf

2) Illuminated by Mag.


----------



## Marduke (Jun 15, 2008)

loszabo said:


> 25 years ago space exploration was a huge media-thing. Today...? :sigh:



They are trying to change that with the Constellation program


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 16, 2008)

Marduke said:


> It's actually pretty funny. Many of the computer parts used in components such as the solid rocket boosters are vintage, and when they need replacements, NASA has to shop on eBay for people selling their old antique computer junk.
> 
> True story, that's where some of it comes from.




It's not just NASA that still utilize older computer technology, one site I work still use early 1990 specification computers to drive their critical systems, it's not because it would be too hard to upgrade component wise but because the specialist programing requires that era technology (hence upgrading would involve software in conjunction with hardware replacement & refinement) 

FWIW my firewall/router still uses such specification components and if NASA needs any more even older 80's computer ancillaries feel free to send me a PM :thumbsup: 

Why are people assuming that Maglites are so technologically bereft that anything would be better... how many other lights could effectively double as a makeshift hammer/impact device & remain fully functional? If NASA dismantles iPods (and similar equipment) to ensure compatibility/safety is it too far a stretch to imagine that there aren't any flash-a-holics working within NASA itself (who could drop some 'LED goodness' in there)? :thinking:


----------



## IMSabbel (Jun 16, 2008)

About the maglight: There is a good chance this thing has been up there since the first inhabitable module, a decade ago. 
Just think back, about the alternatives: LEDs didnt exist, and you dont want something using lithium batteries up there.

And about the processors: Thats not because they are cheap, but because it costs tons of effort to get stuff running, and there is no reason to change if it works.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jun 16, 2008)

IMSabbel said:


> About the maglight: There is a good chance this thing has been up there since the first inhabitable module, a decade ago.
> Just think back, about the alternatives: LEDs didnt exist, and you dont want something using lithium batteries up there...



That makes the most sense...when you consider the fact that weight is a serious factor with every launch, then why worry about sending up new flashlights to replace the ones they already have up there, that do their job just fine? :thinking:


----------



## Meltdown (Jun 16, 2008)

I've heard that for handheld spotlights the shuttle crews use Collins Dynamics products. can anyone verify? I sure like their lights. simple and rugged.


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 16, 2008)

So if NASA is deep in the design process of Constellation, I wonder who is responsible for designing and selecting portable illumination devices for use in and outside of the spacecraft.

Which flashlight will be the first to be used when we return to the Moon?

This guy owns a brass flashlight that was designed for Apollo. I recall seeing photos of this type of light inside of the Apollo Command Module.
http://www.apolloartifacts.com/2008/01/brass-flashligh.html


----------



## Mark620 (Jun 16, 2008)

elgarak said:


> For Apollo, they used a pure oxygen atmosphere, since it is much easier to control and maintain a one-gas atmosphere than a two-gas one. For long-term stay, however, the pure oxygen has health and technical problems, which is why they switched.



UUUUUUUUM they quit the pure O2 on apollo after the apollo1 crew died during a launch simulation.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 17, 2008)

Yo' mark interesting signature line... what percentage of the worlds' scientific community would that equal? :tinfoil:


----------



## elgarak (Jun 17, 2008)

Mark620 said:


> UUUUUUUUM they quit the pure O2 on apollo after the apollo1 crew died during a launch simulation.


Only for launch-pad operations and ascent. During the flight and on the moon, it was still a pure O2 atmosphere. In particular on the moon, since the LM and the suits could not handle the higher pressure if you would use a two-gas atmosphere.

For EVA, they still use pure O2 in the suits today. A great deal of time of preparation for the astronauts for EVA is to purge themselves from the nitrogen, and to get it back safely (without the bends) afterwards.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 17, 2008)

The bends (DCS) are not an issue unless there are pressure changes, which I assume there are not, unless the EVA suits operate at a substantially lower pressure than the spacecraft itself.

Oxygen toxicity might become a problem after an extended period of breathing pure O2, unless this is at low pressure.

Interesting discussion - what pressures are used in the EVA suits and the spacecraft / shuttles / ISS?


----------



## nikon (Jun 17, 2008)

I just found the following while looking for the effects of breathing pure oxygen.......http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/72299.php


----------



## Marduke (Jun 17, 2008)

Shuttle and ISS use the same specs IIRC
14.7psia, with a 80/20 mix 

And for EVA's they use 100% O2 at 4.3psia


----------



## DM51 (Jun 17, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Shuttle and ISS use the same specs IIRC
> 14.7psia, with a 80/20 mix
> 
> And for EVA's they use *100% O2 at 4.3psia*


 That is a low pressure, but at 100% O2 the equivalent PO2 is ~0.3 bar, which is fine (normoxic air at sea level has a PO2 of 0.21 bar). Problems only occur after a while above 0.5 bar, or very quickly above 1.6 bar (the maximum safe limit).

The pressure difference from 14.7 to 4.3 psi is a big one, and explains the "deco" the astronauts would have to do to get to the lower pressure, ridding all body tissue of N2.


----------



## etc (Jun 18, 2008)

Mr. Zenon said:


> 1) The most complex machine ever built by man. (source: NASA)
> http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/21stCenturyShuttle.pdf
> 
> 2) Illuminated by Mag.



Nothing surprsing here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Flight risk management
Close-up of the Left Bipod Foam Ramp that broke off and damaged the Shuttle wing.
Close-up of the Left Bipod Foam Ramp that broke off and damaged the Shuttle wing.

In a risk-management scenario similar to the Challenger disaster, NASA management failed to recognize the relevance of engineering concerns for safety. Two examples of this were failure to honor engineer requests for imaging to inspect possible damage, and failure to respond to engineer requests about status of astronaut inspection of the left wing. Engineering made three separate requests for Department of Defense (DOD) imaging of the shuttle in orbit to more precisely determine damage. While the images were not guaranteed to show the damage, the capability existed for imaging of sufficient resolution to provide meaningful examination. In fact, the CAIB recommended subsequent shuttle flights be imaged while in orbit using ground-based or space-based Department of Defense assets.[5] NASA management did not honor the requests and in some cases intervened to stop the DOD from assisting.

NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer was concerned about left wing TPS damage and asked NASA management whether an astronaut would visually inspect it. NASA managers never responded.


----------



## etc (Jun 18, 2008)

Some poor management decisions.. get the picture?


http://space.about.com/cs/challenger/a/challenger.htm

he commission's report cited the cause of the disaster as a the failure of an “O-ring” seal in the solid-fuel rocket on the Space Shuttle Challenger's right side. The faulty design of the seal coupled with the unusually cold weather, let hot gases to leak through the joint. Booster rocket flames were able to pass through the failed seal enlarging the small hole. These flames then burned through the Space Shuttle Challenger's external fuel tank and through one of the supports that attached the booster to the side of the tank. That booster broke loose and collided with the tank, piercing the tank's side. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuels from the tank and booster mixed and ignited, causing the Space Shuttle Challenger to tear apart.

The commission not only found fault with a failed sealant ring but also with the officials at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) who allowed the shuttle launch to take place despite concerns voiced by NASA engineers.


----------



## FredM (Jun 18, 2008)

DM51 said:


> Very interesting. One major consideration for them is weight. It costs $$$$$$ in fuel to get every ounce of weight up into space. You would think they would go for something with the best possible power/weight ratio. And for the ISS, definitely a rechargeable (NiCad for safety?) to minimize weight in batteries.





> NASA has notified companies that commercial experiments on ISS will cost $10,000 per pound



You weould think a maglite might not be the best thing. Certainly something on a NiCd battery would be much better.


----------



## maxa beam (Jun 18, 2008)

They won't exactly be doing long-range shots there.

I'm suprised, I thought they would opt for some sort of solar or hand-crank light.


----------



## Braddah_Bill (Jun 18, 2008)

One word......Marketing.

I think Mag Light gave Nasa all the lights they could use back then, and in the future for FREE. When millions of people all around the world see a Mag Light on the ISS being used by the crew what do you think will happen when they (millions of people) need to buy a light..........

"Hey this is the light they use on the ISS, It must be good."





Bill


----------



## Marduke (Jun 18, 2008)

25 years ago, name 5 quality, durable flashlights which were made in the USA.


----------



## Mark620 (Jun 18, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Yo' mark interesting signature line... what percentage of the worlds' scientific community would that equal? :tinfoil:



Considering that the IPCC has 2500 people stating that global warming is man made and a considerable amount of them are reviewers and politicians...it makes it quite unbalanced against the IPCC's lies.

Of all the global temperature data released so far 2008 is the coldest year since 1972 and 1956.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 18, 2008)

Mark620 said:


> Considering that the IPCC has 2500 people stating that global warming is man made and a considerable amount of them are reviewers and politicians...it makes it quite unbalanced against the IPCC's lies.
> 
> Of all the global temperature data released so far 2008 is the coldest year since 1972 and 1956.


Yeah definitely... polluting the very air we breathe, soil we grow our food with & water we need to sustain life HAS to be good for us, oh and remember the best scientific minds of the day once thought the world was flat (oh and the centre of the universe too) 

*Back OT*




Marduke said:


> 25 years ago, name 5 quality, durable flashlights which were made in the USA.



Now that theory makes the most sense! :thumbsup:


----------



## LukeA (Jun 18, 2008)

Marduke said:


> 25 years ago, name 5 quality, durable flashlights which were made in the USA.



Hmm...2DMag, 3DMag, 4DMag, 5DMag, 6DMag






PS: Spare me the history lesson if not all those were in production 25 years ago. :wave:


----------



## Patriot (Jun 18, 2008)

DM51 said:


> Very interesting. One major consideration for them is weight. It costs $$$$$$ in fuel to get every ounce of weight up into space. You would think they would go for something with the best possible power/weight ratio. And for the ISS, definitely a rechargeable (NiCad for safety?) to minimize weight in batteries.




My thoughts exactly. The 3D mag really threw me for a loop. I wonder how much it cost to get just that one to 275 miles high and 17,500mph. I think NASA needs to be enlightened.


----------



## Riddick (Jun 23, 2008)

Got to watch some of the documentary "When We Left Earth" on the Discovery Chanel. And you can plainly see the tell-tale beam pattern of the MiniMaglite in use on the ISS and being used by the astronauts themselves.

Man, I feel like someone could design something like a E2L with a F04 beam diffuser for these guys & gals that would be safe enough for NASA to use up there.

Now I know I'm not as enlightened as most of you, but jeez just swapping out the lamp assem. for an LED gotta save runtime,durability and weight and the tints of the LED could be handpicked it can't be that difficult. What are we talking about here maybe 1-500 lights for equipment rotation or how ever NASA does it. The balance of the production run with the slightly off tints could be sold to the public to help people get re-interested in space travel. Hell the sale would probably pay for the run and a profit / no cost to the taxpayer. 

Nobody in Washington even gave this a thought:duh2:


----------



## TONY M (Jun 23, 2008)

I wonder if they could harness enough solar energy to charge the lights/batteries? Obviously they could do this if flashlight bateries were the only things they had to recharge on the ISS but sustainable power is also required for many other things I assume.

Anyway, as I said earlier in this thread it seems like madness using incan Mags for something like this especially in this day and age.


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Jun 23, 2008)

Well aparently Surefire HAD something in mind when they made these....


----------



## Size15's (Jun 23, 2008)

One advantage of the large, long Maglights is that they are hard to miss-place. This is a big issue on ISS - things get lost and sometimes never found.

There was one example of a running shoe being found many many months after it was lost - found behind an equipment rack when it was next due for servicing.

Obviously a running shoe is critical because the treadmills are narrow and the ISS crews must exercise for over an hour each day or risk serious long term muscle and bone density loss. It was difficult to make do running with standard trainers.

Anyway so having huge flashlights located in obvious locations makes for quick and easy utilisation.

I can think of plenty of alternatives that can likely better meet ISS requirements that the Maglights. To replace anything is quite a big deal with what can be sent up planned out years in advance. To fly up several kg's of new flashlights and associated items is perhaps a big limiting factor when it comes to ISS.

Al


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 23, 2008)

*NASA Apollo mini Space Flashlight for SALE!*

Through Astro-Auction (By Novaspace Galleries)

"Ron Evans (1933-1990) Was Command Module Pilot on Apollo 17, and served on thebackup crew for Apollo 14 and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). This is the firsttime any of Evans' collection has been offered to the public."

"Brass flashlight used by Evans in Apollo 17 simluator training. 5" long. Comes with a COA that states that this comes from Ron and Jan Evans' personal collection."

Auction: http://www.astro-auction.com/cgi-bin/auction/auction.pl?category=evansgaragesale&item=1214788748

Pict: http://www.astro-auction.com/auct-photos/1229649311.jpg

(As of 7/23/08) Price is at $657 with 16 bids; 6 days remaining in auction


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 23, 2008)

*Re: NASA Apollo mini Space Flashlight for SALE!*



Mr. Zenon said:


> "Ron Evans (1933-1990) Was Command Module Pilot on Apollo 17, and served on thebackup crew for Apollo 14 and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP). This is the firsttime any of Evans' collection has been offered to the public."
> 
> "Brass flashlight used by Evans in Apollo 17 simluator training. 5" long. Comes with a COA that states that this comes from Ron and Jan Evans' personal collection."
> 
> ...



Even though this not a flown piece, I bet this flashlight goes for some serious cash. I would love to own this and place it on the top echelon of my shelf queens, but I think that this is going to sell for $2-3k. Maybe more..


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jul 4, 2008)

http://www.astro-auction.com/cgi-bi...ategory=closed&item=evansgaragesale1214788748

NASA flashlight sold $1400.


----------



## Patriot (Jul 4, 2008)

*Re: NASA Apollo mini Space Flashlight for SALE!*



Mr. Zenon said:


> Even though this not a flown piece, I bet this flashlight goes for some serious cash. I would love to own this and place it on the top echelon of my shelf queens, but I think that this is going to sell for $2-3k. Maybe more..




It looks like it closed at $1400!


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Aug 31, 2008)

FLOWN Apollo 8 Flashlight up for auction owned by Commander Jim Lovell. Boy.. I wish I had the dough to buy this... 

http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?SaleNo=6007&LotIdNo=21016

From the auction...

Apollo 8 Flown Flashlight from the Personal Collection of Mission Command Module Pilot James Lovell. A heavy, brass-milled two-cell flashlight, 5" in length and with a maximum diameter of 1". The original batteries are still inside. The filament in the bulb appears to be intact. It has a part number of "ACR FA 5", a serial number of "1060", and a date of manufacture of "7-68" as printed on the barrel. "On" and "Off" are printed near the head and a piece of Velcro is attached at the top near the lens. This personal penlight accompanied the crew of Apollo 8 on its landmark trip into lunar orbit; they were the first men to see the "dark" side of the moon. Very fine condition.

This lot includes a signed Letter of Authenticity from Lovell on his letterhead stating: "I hereby certify that this flashlight was on board Apollo 8. Apollo 8 was the first journey to the moon in December, 1968. This flashlight is from my personal collection of space artifacts and has been in my possession since the mission."


----------



## superflytnt (Aug 31, 2008)

Mr. Zenon said:


> FLOWN Apollo 8 Flashlight up for auction owned by Commander Jim Lovell. Boy.. I wish I had the dough to buy this...
> 
> http://historical.ha.com/common/view_item.php?SaleNo=6007&LotIdNo=21016
> 
> ...


 



Oh man do I want that light!! The Apollo program was one of the greatest achievements in the history of man IMO. True, I don't care for the reason that they went and would rather it have been a purely scientific agenda instead of the start of the cold war but still................it's something that I would have loved to have been a part of.

As for lights in space, I do wonder what they carry nowadays? I know that Photon Microlights are up there (and are a good idea if they're securely clipped to your person at all times) and I hope that large, heavy Mags are being phased out. Those Petzyl Tikka headlamps in the photos are a good, long-running headlamp but I'd still love to know what they're using right now....................


----------



## Burgess (Aug 31, 2008)

*The original batteries are still inside.*

:wow:



BTW, on October 1st, 1995,
I actually *saw *astronaut Jim Lovell
at the (beautiful) Rialto Square Theatre in Joliet, Illinois.​ 

He spoke for an hour, answered questions for 15 min, then signed autographs.

Cost me the princely sum of $15.50 to purchase my ticket.
( which i still have ! )


I was very grateful for the opportunity to meet this man,
having always been a "student" of History.


This was right after his Apollo 13 movie, with Tom Hanks.



Gee, i wonder what the batteries look like.


_


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Oct 21, 2009)

I saw this posted.. Just an FYI and raising this thread from the dead. 

Very interesting reading about NASA flashlights that went to the moon!

http://www.edgeofdarkness.com/flown/flown_flashlights.html


----------



## Toohotruk (Oct 21, 2009)

Cool link! :twothumbs


----------



## MKLight (Oct 22, 2009)

Very cool! Kind of looks like one of Peak's AA lights.


----------



## Juggernaut (Oct 22, 2009)

MKLight said:


> Very cool! Kind of looks like one of Peak's AA lights.


 
That’s what I was thinking.


----------



## angelofwar (Oct 23, 2009)

I wanna say, I'm pretty sure SF was involved in developing a light for NASA (through DAPRA)...I'll have to dig up the info...


----------



## Nyctophiliac (Oct 23, 2009)

Wow - fantastic link.

I so want one of those!!

How I prize my gold Minimag - just because it reminds me of the ACR Apollo light.

There is one I've seen at the science museum in London for those UK CPFers interested - not a very polished specimen though - and I'm not referring to Italian Astronauts here.


----------



## Toohotruk (Oct 24, 2009)

Nyctophiliac said:


> ...There is one I've seen at the science museum in London for those UK CPFers interested - not a very polished specimen though - and I'm not referring to Italian Astronauts here.




You should go take a couple of pics and post them here... 


I'd love to see them!


----------

