Ten Enduring Myths About the U.S. Space Program
Outer space has many mysteries, among them are these fables about NASA that have permeated the public’s memory
- By Mark Strauss
- Smithsonian.com, April 15, 2011, Subscribe
(Page 2 of 2)
In truth, NASA’s budget as a percentage of federal spending peaked at 4.4 percent in 1966, and hasn’t risen above 1 percent since 1993. Today, the U.S. space program accounts for less than one-half of 1 percent of all federal spending.
A 2009 Gallup poll found that most Americans—when told the actual amount spent by the space program—continue to express support for the current level of funding for NASA (46 percent) or an expansion of it (14 percent).
7. “The STS-48 UFO”
Photographs and videos taken by U.S. spacecraft have opened up a whole new vista for alleged UFO sightings. Among the most famous of these is a video sequence recorded by the space shuttle Discovery (Mission STS-48), while in orbit on September 15, 1991.
A description of the video appears on numerous websites and newsgroups:
“A glowing object suddenly appeared just below the horizon and ‘slowly’ moved from right to left and slightly upward in the picture. Several other glowing objects had been visible before this, and had been moving in various directions. Then a flash of light occurred at what seemed to be the lower left of the screen; and the main object, along with the others, changed direction and accelerated away sharply, as if in response to the flash.”
UFO enthusiasts claim the video shows that the space shuttle was being followed by extraterrestrial spacecraft, which then fled in response to a ground-based laser attack. The footage was aired by media outlets such as CNN’s “Larry King Live” (which challenged viewers to “Judge for yourself”).
The UFOs were, in fact, small fragments of orbital flotsam and jetsam. As space author James Oberg has explained, there are more than 50 sources of water, ice and debris on the shuttle—including an air dump line, a waste water dump line and 38 reaction control system (RCS) thrusters that are used for attitude control and steering.
So, his explanation for the events in the video?
“The RCS jets usually fire in 80-millisecond pulses to keep the shuttle pointed in a desired direction….These jets may flash when they ignite if the mixture ratio is not quite right…When small, drifting debris particles are hit by this RCS plume they are violently accelerated away from the jet. This is what is seen [in the video], where a flash (the jet firing) is immediately followed by all nearby particles being pushed away from the jet, followed shortly later by a fast, moving object (evidently RCS fuel ice) departing from the direction of the jet.”
8. “The Fisher Space Pen ‘brought the astronauts home.’”
In his book, Men from Earth, Buzz Aldrin describes a brief moment when it seemed that the Apollo 11 lander might be stranded on the lunar surface: "We discovered during a long checklist recitation that the ascent engine's arming circuit breaker was broken off on the panel. The little plastic pin (or knob) simply wasn't there. This circuit would send electrical power to the engine that would lift us off the Moon.”
What happened next is the stuff of legend. The astronauts reached for their Fisher Space Pen—fitted with a cartridge of pressurized nitrogen, allowing it to write without relying on gravity—and wedged it into the switch housing, completing the circuit and enabling a safe return.
True enough, except that the astronauts didn’t use the Fisher Space Pen. Aldrin relied on a felt-tip marker, since the non-conductive tip would close the contact without shorting it out, or causing a spark.
The myth endures, in part, because the Fisher Space Pen company knew an opportunity when it saw one. They began promoting their product as the writing instrument that had “brought the astronauts home.”
9. “President John F. Kennedy wanted America to beat the Soviet Union to the Moon.”
Had JFK not been assassinated in 1963, it is possible that the space race to the Moon would instead have been a joint venture with the Soviet Union.
Initially, the young president saw winning the space race as a way to enhance America’s prestige and, more broadly, to demonstrate to the world what democratic societies could accomplish.
However, JFK began to think differently as relations with the Soviet Union gradually thawed in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis and the costs of the Moon program became increasingly exorbitant. Nor was America confident at that time that it could beat the Soviet Union. And, in his recent book, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, space historian John Logsdon notes that the president also believed that the offer of a cooperative mission could be used as a bargaining chip in Washington’s diplomatic dealings with Moscow.
In a September 1963 speech before the United Nations, JFK publicly raised the possibility of a joint expedition: “Space offers no problems of sovereignty…why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction and expenditure?”
But, the prospect of a U.S.-Soviet mission to the Moon died with Kennedy. Winning the space race continued to drive the Apollo program. Eventually, “the U.S. space program, and particularly the lunar landing effort,” Logsdon writes, became “a memorial” to JFK, who had pledged to send a man to the Moon and return him safely by the end of the decade.
10. “No Buck Rogers, No Bucks.”
For decades, scientists and policy-makers have debated whether space exploration is better suited to human beings or robots.
While there are many solid arguments in favor of manned exploration, the most frequently cited one is arguably the least convincing: without spacefaring heroes, the nation’s interest in space science and exploration will dwindle. Or, to paraphrase a line from The Right Stuff, “no Buck Rogers, no bucks.”
“Don’t believe for a minute that the American public is as excited about unmanned programs as they are about manned ones,” cautioned Franklin Martin, NASA’s former associate administrator for its office of exploration, in an interview with Popular Science. “You don’t give ticker tape parades to robots no matter how exciting they are.”
But the American public’s fascination with images taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and the sagas of the robotic Mars rovers Pathfinder (1997), Spirit (2004) and Opportunity (2004, and still operating) belies the assertion that human beings are vital participants. Proponents of unmanned space exploration make the case that the most essential element for sustaining public interest are missions that produce new images and data, and which challenge our notions of the universe. “There is an intrinsic excitement to astronomy in general and cosmology in particular, quite apart from the spectator sport of manned spaceflight,” writes the famed philosopher and physicist Freeman Dyson, who offers a verse from the ancient mathematician Ptolemy: “I know that I am mortal and a creature of one day; but when my mind follows the massed wheeling circles of the stars, my feet no longer touch the earth.”
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (23)
+ View All Comments
For John Wallis; think about how a lightswitch is nonconducting, and how it closes an electrical circuit. Penny? Drop? And for zippy, I assume you leave the room because you have no answer to logical proof for the various conspiracies which you don't believe in, but which JFK and Eisenhower and Woodrow Wilson and Henry Ford and many others with slightly more access to information than you, all did believe in. Do you not find it curious that the HST is unable to definitively reveal the presence of Lunar Rovers et al on the Moon's surface, despite the fact that we were recently promised such pictures? And why will none of the astronots swear on the Bible that they have been where we are told they have been? Very odd. And as the US is not a country, but a Corporation, whose sole object is to return a profit, does it not make more sense, and much greater profit, to stage the whole Lunar and Martian Environments, in the desert of Albuquerque? Back to sleep, zippy, it's much less stressful.
Posted by Tim Webb on May 11,2012 | 03:33 AM
The assertion that "you can only leave a footprint in moist soil" is a crock. I worked in a grain elevator for years; footprints were everywhere.
Posted by Nate on September 3,2011 | 03:24 PM
Good Lord, you dummies, the article said "to paraphrase a line from The Right Stuff"
"Paraphrase." Do you remember that term from seventh grade English?
Anyway, an enjoyable article, even if it made a few nerds convulse with rage.
Posted by Ben on September 3,2011 | 11:31 AM
Some responders seem to have misread this sentence:
. Or, to paraphrase a line from The Right Stuff, “no Buck Rogers, no bucks.”
The operative word is PARAPHRASE. The author did not misquote the film, but paraphrased it, to make a different point. In the film, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" meant that without support by taxpayers and legislators, nobody flies in space. To the author, "no Buck Rogers, no bucks" means that without human astro-heroes, such support will end. The author then debunks that point, showing that exciting images and paradigm-breaking data have been sufficient to excite public interest.
The tragedy here is that narrow political interests block that public interest from translating to budgetary support. So vital science programs are killed; and the nation and world and humanity all suffer the consequences.
Posted by Ric Carter on September 3,2011 | 08:58 AM
One might conveniently note that many of the engineers (not the console jockies, but the real designers of the gear)from NASA, Boeing, North American, Grumman and others, now admit that launches were a matter of bated breath since they knew that the real chances of there being an accident, with total loss of vehicle and crew was about 10% for any given launch/landing/return. Much of the supposed 'safety precautions' and even some of the hardware was strictly window dressing, with no chance of saving crews should any of the most likely accidents occur. I have known several of those engineers, and were told, in no uncertain terms, that it is the nature of the mission that those risks levels are unlikely to be improved upon. Indeed, experience showed us that a mission with closer objectives could not support a prolonged program without significant mortality. The loss of a single life answering a question that might conveniently be answered by a robotic mission (or, indeed, for the same costs, dozens of robotic missions, and hundreds of answers) is neither glorious or heroic, it's just a waste, plain and simple.
Posted by tekgiz on September 3,2011 | 05:15 AM
Regarding the origin of "A-OK" (usually rendered that way rather than "A-Okay"):
You've busted one myth -- that of Alan Shepard's having coined the term -- but another one remains. John "Shorty" Powers did NOT coin the term during that post-flight press conference, either! This becomes obvious when one examines p. 57 of "All-American Ads of the 50s", edited by Jim Heimann (Taschen, 2001); there one will find an ad from 1952 for a metals company that uses "A-OK" -- and in an aerospace context even! So the term dates back AT LEAST that far.
Well, I can't blame you for not knowing, since this is the first time I've pointed it out to anyone. Perhaps I should have done so earlier....
Posted by An Infinitude of Tortoises on September 2,2011 | 11:11 PM
"Aldrin relied on a felt-tip marker, since the non-conductive tip would close the contact without shorting it out"
How could a non-conductive anything close an electrical circuit?
Posted by Jon Wallis on September 2,2011 | 06:35 PM
Actually the quote "No Bucks - No Buck Rogers" was said by the astronauts to the Nasa engineers. Their point was, build the spacecraft our way or we won't promote the agency, thereby cutting funding for the program. The astronauts wanted a hatch with exploding bolts and control over the spacecraft in case the computers went haywire. What was the likely-hood of that happening? LOL
Posted by Mike Bresnahan on July 4,2011 | 08:43 AM
Actually, whoever wrote this article completely misunderstood what was said in "The Right Stuff".
The quote is: "No bucks, no Buck Rogers", which is the converse of what was written in the article.
The person saying it was making a point to the potential astronauts: without funding, you men won't -be- astronauts, because there will be no space program.
He was saying that funding creats astronauts, not (as stated above) that astronauts drum up more funding.
Posted by Luis on May 8,2011 | 01:20 PM
Great information and points of views..I love reading the comments that follow great articles..Keep up the great work and keep expanding others knowledge.
Posted by Antonio Torres on April 29,2011 | 03:14 PM
The Manned vs Unmanned dichotomy is a false one. An unmanned science program is not what keeps the public engaged alone - it's the prospect of following the robots eventually which keeps us interested. No dollars for astronauts will eventually mean no dollars for robots - a cut to a manned program is a cut to both. Robots Only advocates are living in a cozy self-delusional day-dream to think otherwise.
Posted by Adam Crowl on April 27,2011 | 04:57 PM
As a young boy living in Germany, I clearly remember the Apollo moon landings.
And I was deeply disappointed when Obama recently cancelled the Constellation Program returning man to the moon.
Likewise the end of the Shuttle program means that there are no American manned flights in the foreseeable future.
It seems that as a country the United States no longer has the "right stuff".
Posted by Zexufang on April 25,2011 | 11:29 AM
> Robots can go further and learn more, for a fraction of the cost.
That's highly arguable. Even Steve Squyres, the lead scientist for the Mars rovers, said a human being could do in a day what it took one of his rovers a year to do. They may be cheaper, but they're much, much slower.
I'd like to add another myth to the list: that all NASA missions cost billions of dollars. The failed Mars probes were a public relations debacle for just this reason, even though both of the failed missions combined only cost about $500 million (including the launch vehicle). Faster-better-cheaper failed not because it was a bad idea but because the public couldn't be made to understand that four $500 million missions, one of which fails, is better than one $2 billion mission that's great if it succeeds but a disaster if it fails.
Posted by Kevin W. Parker on April 22,2011 | 11:20 PM
A related myth – not about the NASA program but about space program history in general – is the myth or misunderstanding that the U.S. was alone in exploring the Moon. (Specifically, that the Russians never got there.) In fact, the Soviet Union's LUNAKHOD program successfully placed history's first remotely-controlled, robotic devices on the moon in 1970 and 1973, a fact that was mostly ignored by U.S. media reporting. The U.S. did win the space race both technically and in public perception by getting there first and actually getting humans there and back successfully. But the accomplishments of the Lunakhod program should not be overlooked, since unmanned robotic exploration was to become the only real future of space exploration beyond the moon. Lunakhod was both mobile and remotely-controllable, capabilities that were not match by U.S. planetary probes until 1997. Decades later the primary mastermind behind Lunakhod, Alexander Kemurdzhian, collaborated with NASA's JPL scientists on the U.S. unmanned exploration program.
Posted by Charles McNeill on April 22,2011 | 12:42 PM
+ View All Comments