# NASA Space Shuttle Flashlight



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 29, 2006)

In anticipation of the launch of Discovery STS-121 on Saturday (7/1/2006), I was wondering about the flashlight on-board the Shuttle.

This is what I found from NASA's website:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_egress.html#sts_sightaids

"The spotlight is a high-intensity, hand-held flashlight powered by a battery pack consisting of five 1.2-volt one-half D size nickel-cadmium batteries. The spotlight produces a 20,000-candlepower output with a continuous running time of 1.5 hours. The lamp is a 6-volt tungsten filament and cannot be replaced in flight. A spare battery pack is available on board."

Does anyone know anything about this flashlight?


----------



## Shaocaholica (Jun 29, 2006)

If its NASA, its probably custom made either in house or contracted. If you find the plans, you can make one yourself but I doubt you could buy one.


----------



## baylisstic (Jun 29, 2006)

Sounds like a magcharger.

"The spotlight is a high-intensity, hand-held flashlight powered by a battery pack consisting of five 1.2-volt one-half D size nickel-cadmium batteries. The spotlight produces a 20,000-candlepower output with a continuous running time of 1.5 hours. The lamp is a 6-volt tungsten filament and cannot be replaced in flight. A spare battery pack is available on board."


----------



## mossyoak (Jun 29, 2006)

sounds like crap
come on get into the 21st century and use lithiums and luxeons


----------



## nerdgineer (Jun 29, 2006)

mossyoak said:


> ...come on get into the 21st century and use lithiums and luxeons...


I bet they're real touchy about safety which I'm guessing leaves out lithiums and li-ions. I think NASA requires "5 nines" of reliability and maybe more for safety in the shake and bake environment of spacecraft.

Batteries are probably replaced every flight so ni-cad memory isn't a problem. It also probably took so much effort to certify this flashlight as spaceworthy that they don't want to certify a new design unless there is something specifically lacking in the current design.

You haven't lived until you've lived through a full up mil-spec certification test and I imagine NASA's are worse.


----------



## scott.cr (Jun 29, 2006)

Back when I was a gov't contractor, NASA bought tons and tons of Kohler BrightStar lights. Doubt they're certified for use in space vehicles! (Well, space vehicles that are actually in space! Prolly okay in the repair bay!)


----------



## gdict (Jun 29, 2006)

Sounds like a StreamLight SL20 or SL20P. They have always been marketed as 20K candlepower. I think MAG claims 35K for the MagCharger. It doesn't seem unrealistic for a high quality off the shelf light to be used in space. The StreamLight has also been around a long time, "almost" as long as the shuttle itself.


Cheers!

Greg


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 29, 2006)

gdict said:


> Sounds like a StreamLight SL20 or SL20P. They have always been marketed as 20K candlepower. I think MAG claims 35K for the MagCharger. It doesn't seem unrealistic for a high quality off the shelf light to be used in space. The StreamLight has also been around a long time, "almost" as long as the shuttle itself.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> ...



Wouldn't the light need to work in zero atmosphere and zero-G in the event of decompression or for use outside? I doubt an off da shelf light could be certified. It also noted that the bulb can not be replaced in-flight. Me thinks its a custom job and spaceproof.

Probably cost $100k+.


----------



## Grox (Jun 29, 2006)

An LED solution would seem more reliable (longer running too) to me, but then again maybe there other considerations that I'm not aware of. Radiation? Colour temperature?

Maybe it is spaceproof...?


----------



## GregWormald (Jun 29, 2006)

Remember it has probably been provided by the lowest bidder! Hope the bulb doesn't burn out when they turn it on.
Greg


----------



## Mr. Zenon (Jun 29, 2006)

*NASA's Spaceproof EVA flashlights (PICTS)*

Ha! 

I got the answer from digging deep in NASA's site.
http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section14.htm#_14.6_EVA_TOOLS,

Here you go. And yes these are "Spaceproof". 

Knowing that these are indeed custom manufactured lights, I'm pretty sure that it would cost a fortune to aquire one. How cool would it be to own a Spaceproof flashlight? 

http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/images/Section14/Image371.gif

Technical Information
Part number	: 10161-10061-04
Weight: 2.27 kb (5 lb) (without main batteries)
2.67 kb (5.88 lb) (with main batteries)
Quantity flown:	Two in the middeck Volume H locker
Main power supply:	Two independent battery modules (one per side)
Main batteries:	D-size lithium bromine complex (3.5 V, 8 A-hr each)
Battery life:	3 hr 0min with four lamps operating
Voltage: Open circuit	3.77 ± 0.2 V dc
Loaded:	3.25 V dc
Lamps:	Two halogen lamps per side (2.5 W each)
Lamp intensity:	215 LUX (20 ft-c (min)) per lamp at 91 cm (3 ft)
Lamp life:	20 hr
Lighting pattern: 41 cm by 61 cm (16 in by 24 in at 2 ft) (four lamps on pointed forward)
Operation:	Momentary switch activated sequencing circuit on each side
Sequencer power supply:	Four watch batteries in series per side
Sequencer battery:	Silver oxide (1.5 V Duracell, 38 mA-hr)
Thermal protection:	71 deg C ± 2 deg (160 deg F ± 5 deg) thermostats and mutilayer insulation
Structural F S	1.4
Dimensional data
A	22.38 cm
(8.81 in)
B	11.84 cm
(4.66 in)
C	19.71 cm
(7.76 in)
D	39.42 cm
(15.52 in)
E	50.24 cm
(19.78 in)
F	10.92 cm
(4.3 in)
G	4.78 cm
(1.88 in)
Reference: 145, p. E-11; NASA-STD-3000 318

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

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
Quantity flown	One for STS 41-G, 51-A, 51-I
Stowage	Middeck locker
Dimensional data
A	30 cm
(12 in) true length
B	3.56 cm
(1.40 in)


----------



## metalhed (Jun 29, 2006)

What I want to know is, 'What company won the contract to produce these?'

I'm curious as to whether or not it is one of the major flashlight manufacturers, as opposed to a military contract specialty manufacturer. :thinking:


----------



## msnyder (Jun 29, 2006)

Mr. Zenon said:


> In anticipation of the launch of Discovery STS-121 on Saturday (7/1/2006), I was wondering about the flashlight on-board the Shuttle.
> 
> This is what I found from NASA's website:
> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_egress.html#sts_sightaids
> ...



Five one-half D cells? Have you ever heard of anything that ran on
five one-half D cells? Heck, have you ever heard of anything that ran
on one-half D cells at all?


Hmm... five times 1.2 is 6 volts exactly. Probably designed to spec.


----------



## bwaites (Jun 29, 2006)

msnyder,

Yes, there are only about a million rechargeable flashlights out there that run on 5 1/2D NiCad cells. They are called MagChargers or SL20's.

The first made by, you guessed it, Maglite. The second made by Streamlight, (SL, get it?)

Sounds to me like a MagCharger or SL20 that has been customized to fit the environment. Seal the head, use some kind of non glass window.

The problem is NiCads don't work so well in COLD environments, so being in the shade would not be so great if you were trying to use it outside the vehicle, but then, I doubt they carry a handheld light out there anyway.

Bill


----------



## msnyder (Jun 30, 2006)

bwaites said:


> msnyder,
> 
> Yes, there are only about a million rechargeable flashlights out there that run on 5 1/2D NiCad cells. They are called MagChargers or SL20's.
> 
> The first made by, you guessed it, Maglite. The second made by Streamlight, (SL, get it?)



Oh. Well... who knew? Ahem. Everybody but me, I guess... ;-)


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jun 30, 2006)

> ...Probably cost $100k+.


Yeah, just the bulb.


----------



## Sgaterboy (Jun 30, 2006)

I'd kinda like to have a space-proof flashlight. I mean, you never really know when the Ozone layer is gonna go kaput and all our atmosphere will leak away. better to be prepared for ANYTHING.


----------



## Illum (Jun 30, 2006)

mossyoak said:


> sounds like crap
> come on get into the 21st century and use lithiums and luxeons



Easy now..

first, NASA can't risk lithiums catching fire in space..where the oxygen level within the soda can is higher than the atmosphere we normally breathe
second, Luxeons are good source of flood but when compared to xenon incans...their not much of a thrower...

this bothers me...if the incan lights are to be used in space...how thick should the bulb be?



Grox said:


> Maybe it is spaceproof...?



LED lights or incans do not require an atmosphere to operate, they do, in fact, require a medium for light to pass through, and perhaps dissapate heat???


----------



## amanichen (Jun 30, 2006)

Illum_the_nation said:


> LED lights or incans do not require an atmosphere to operate, they do, in fact, require a medium for light to pass through, and perhaps dissapate heat???


Light passes quite well through empty space...

Heat is always radiated away, but on Earth we rely on convection (moving fluid) and conduction (particle to particle) to air as well.


----------



## winny (Jun 30, 2006)

Sgaterboy said:


> I'd kinda like to have a space-proof flashlight. I mean, you never really know when the Ozone layer is gonna go kaput and all our atmosphere will leak away. better to be prepared for ANYTHING.



Errr, from your tone I hope you are joking, knowing that the atmosphere is not held in place by the ozone layer. Drop me a PM if you aren't joking....


Yes, having a flashlight you know can work both in space and under water would be great, but I would not like it to be built around 40 year old technoligy just because NASA says so.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Jun 30, 2006)

.................:thumbsdow


I sure hope NASA wraps some DUCT tape around those FOAM covered fuel tanks ....THIS TIME .


So the FOAM don't FLY-OFF this time and damage the wings on lift-off ......


It'ed be pretty stupid to allow the same dumb thing ...... TWICE !


DUCT TAPE EM !!........:huh:

.


----------



## lebox97 (Jun 30, 2006)

yah, I'd find waaaay more use for a light that can be used on earth and underwater... it would make a good coffee table light though.

:lolsign: off topic but... check out duct tape quick links


----------



## dragoman (Jun 30, 2006)

I want to know if the two year battery life for the EVA flashlight is continuous use, or just replaced every two years or as needed......

Strange that they would use 2 alkalines in a space flashlight, you would think they would't work well in the temperature....

dragoman


----------



## Codeman (Jun 30, 2006)

Take a look at the specs Mr. Zenon posted (#11) for the first light, or follow the link to the EVA info. The STS Space Suit Helmet Mounted Light uses D-sized lithium bromide cells.

Traditionally, NASA's been pretty good at utilizing existing technology when it gets the job done. And, when necessary, they're been reponsible for a lot of new technology - thanks for Velcro, NASA!

Just because they choose an older technology doesn't make the choice archaic nor does it make NASA behind the times. Old does not equal bad technology. Using older technology when it fits the design needs is good management and a smart use of our taxes. I applaud them for making smart choices. Goodness knows, if I was an astronaut, I'd want to take along a LionCub, a Raw Ti, an ArcP, anA2, and, of course, bwaite's USL to signal home with!


----------



## mossyoak (Jun 30, 2006)

space is a vacuum and a vacuum is the best insulator possible seems like over heating would be a problem


----------



## Codeman (Jun 30, 2006)

Compared to the flamethrowers we're used to around here, I doubt these EVA lights generate heat at a fast enough rate to require any special heat sinking other than the body of the light itself.


----------



## Sgaterboy (Jun 30, 2006)

winny said:


> Errr, from your tone I hope you are joking, knowing that the atmosphere is not held in place by the ozone layer. Drop me a PM if you aren't joking....


 
. . . no, dude, I know what the ozone layer is. I know all about the special gateways that NASA had to set up in order to get the spaceships and satellites out and back in. I understand that the ozone layer doesnt so much as keep the atmosphere IN as it keeps space OUT. elementary stuff. peace out.


----------



## Illum (Jul 1, 2006)

amanichen said:


> Light passes quite well through empty space...



Come to think of it...yes 
what good is it gonna do if you can't see your own beam? lol



TooManyGizmos said:


> .................:thumbsdow
> 
> 
> I sure hope NASA wraps some DUCT tape around those FOAM covered fuel tanks ....THIS TIME .
> ...



I really wonder why it happens..I mean jeez its not the first time they fly this big ugly fat fella..this is what the 121st flight? if the foam should come off, it should be falling off decades ago...why now?


----------



## Sgaterboy (Jul 1, 2006)

NASA's motto:

NASA: We'll NEVER make the same mistake THREE times!!!


----------



## winny (Jul 1, 2006)

Sgaterboy said:


> . . . no, dude, I know what the ozone layer is. I know all about the special gateways that NASA had to set up in order to get the spaceships and satellites out and back in. I understand that the ozone layer doesnt so much as keep the atmosphere IN as it keeps space OUT. elementary stuff. peace out.



:lolsign:  :lolsign: 

Better get back to topic...


----------



## bejinred (Jul 4, 2006)

The drawing at http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/images/Section14/Image371.gifshow a set of helmet mounted lights used on EVA. I'm trying to get any info on a handheld flashlight carried but everybody is a little crazy right now
At http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-103/html/s99_06191.html and http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-14/html/jsc2006e08947.html show what is sometimes used in the pool. The leds are around a POV camera.
If I remember correct in the pool they did not have a working mockup so the flashlights were used at least for a while. Looks like white duct tape holding it on. at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-12/hires/jsc2005e18895.jpg (sorry this is 1.0 m) you can see the mockup with the flashlight attached


----------



## zhuntai (Jul 4, 2006)

I see no reason why 'space proofing' is an issue, at least in terms of pressure. Pressure when taking things underwater is only an issue because water can be forced inside the flashlight damaging internals. Air getting sucked out... doesn't really matter. The flashlight will work just as well. The only part that may be a problem is the bulb which is generally make with an inert gas inside. A vacuum outside the bulb might make the bulb explode. As I understand it though, bulbs can also be made with a vacuum inside and be made strong enough that they do not im/explode.

Heat... would probably dissipate well enough by radiation. That's what surprises me most about NASA using incans... firstly, incans produce so much more heat locally than LEDs. In fact, they produce their light be heating the filament so hot it glows. Secondly, LEDs don't require the standard 'bulb' design so trapped gas would be even less of an issue.

Thoughts?


----------



## Christoph (Jul 4, 2006)

ITN said"I really wonder why it happens..I mean jeez its not the first time they fly this big ugly fat fella..this is what the 121st flight? if the foam should come off, it should be falling off decades ago...why now?"


A while back they changed some things to be more envieromentaly (sp) safe (read PC) these things they changed did not perform as well as the original items but they are now PC. Its a shame enviormental issues come before safety and performace.
C
Long time space freak.


----------



## Blazer (Jul 4, 2006)

zhuntai said:


> I see no reason why 'space proofing' is an issue, at least in terms of pressure. Pressure when taking things underwater is only an issue because water can be forced inside the flashlight damaging internals. Air getting sucked out... doesn't really matter. The flashlight will work just as well. The only part that may be a problem is the bulb which is generally make with an inert gas inside. A vacuum outside the bulb might make the bulb explode. As I understand it though, bulbs can also be made with a vacuum inside and be made strong enough that they do not im/explode.
> 
> Heat... would probably dissipate well enough by radiation. That's what surprises me most about NASA using incans... firstly, incans produce so much more heat locally than LEDs. In fact, they produce their light be heating the filament so hot it glows. Secondly, LEDs don't require the standard 'bulb' design so trapped gas would be even less of an issue.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
That makes sense with regard to pressure, I'd be more interested in knowing about how about extreme temperatures affect the lights?


----------



## James S (Jul 4, 2006)

Christoff, I've read about that too. The problem was first noticed after they switched to a non-cfc foam. They actually got a special variance from the government to continue to use the old foam, while they do use a lot of it, the overall impact of letting them continue was considered to be nil, but they changed anyway.

I dont know how much of that is true. I've been trying to get my friend who does trouble shooting on the ground data acquisition systems for them to tell me more about that, but he's convinced that it's not any important part of the issue, and when it comes to sorting through the data to figure something out, these guys are the best.

Being a ground systems guy though, he doesn't know much about the flashlights on board, I was just trying to ask him


----------



## Sgaterboy (Jul 4, 2006)

zhuntai said:


> Heat... would probably dissipate well enough by radiation. That's what surprises me most about NASA using incans... firstly, incans produce so much more heat locally than LEDs. In fact, they produce their light be heating the filament so hot it glows. Secondly, LEDs don't require the standard 'bulb' design so trapped gas would be even less of an issue.
> 
> Thoughts?


 
I respectfully disagree with you on the heat being dissipated by radiation. I dont think it has anwhere to radiate to in space. I do agree with the rest of what you said wholeheartedly... LEDs are superior in my opinion for their purposes. Anyone know what Rutan used?


----------



## James S (Jul 4, 2006)

getting rid of heat in a vacuum is a HUGE problem for satellites and anything else that needs to operate there. You can't just have a fan blowing on your CPU, cause there aint no air to blow with it  Thermal considerations are a huge part of the design of those things.

However, I doubt this flashlight is rated to be used outside the shuttle. It probably just needs to rate for the pressures onboard which can change quite a bit if someone is going on a space walk. So as long as it doesn't become an explosion danger as they lower the pressure in the cabin thats probably all they are worried about.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jul 4, 2006)

James S said:


> getting rid of heat in a vacuum is a HUGE problem for satellites and anything else that needs to operate there. You can't just have a fan blowing on your CPU, cause there aint no air to blow with it  Thermal considerations are a huge part of the design of those things...


And even if there were air or some other media present, _convection_ won't work in micro gravities, either.


----------



## elgarak (Jul 4, 2006)

Sgaterboy said:


> I respectfully disagree with you on the heat being dissipated by radiation. I dont think it has anwhere to radiate to in space. I do agree with the rest of what you said wholeheartedly... LEDs are superior in my opinion for their purposes. Anyone know what Rutan used?


Radiation is the only way to get rid of the heat in vacuum... You do not need anything to radiate to, the body just radiates out into space. Or do you think the Sun would not provide IR radiation if the Earth weren't there?


----------

