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
1. “The U.S. space program enjoyed broad, enthusiastic support during the race to land a man on the Moon.”
Throughout the 1960s, public opinion polls indicated that 45 to 60 percent of Americans felt that the government was spending too much money on space exploration. Even after Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind,” only a lukewarm 53 percent of the public believed that the historic event had been worth the cost.
“The decision to proceed with Apollo was not made because it was enormously popular with the public, despite general acquiescence, but for hard-edged political reasons,” writes Roger D. Launius, the senior curator at Smithsonian’s divison of space history, in the journal Space Policy. “Most of these were related to the Cold War crises of the early 1960s, in which spaceflight served as a surrogate for face-to-face military confrontation.” However, that acute sense of crisis was fleeting—and with it, enthusiasm for the Apollo program.
2. “The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is part of NASA.”
The SETI Institute is a private, nonprofit organization consisting of three research centers. The program is not part of NASA; nor is there a government National SETI Agency.
NASA did participate in modest SETI efforts decades ago, and by 1977, the NASA Ames Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) had created small programs to search for extraterrestrial signals. Ames promoted a “targeted search” of stars similar to our sun, while JPL—arguing that there was no way to accurately predict where extraterrestrial civilizations might exist—endorsed a “full sky survey.”
Those plans came to fruition on October 12, 1992—the 500-year anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the New World. Less than a year later, however, Nevada Senator Richard Bryan, citing budget pressures, successfully introduced legislation that killed the project, declaring that “The Great Martian Chase may finally come to an end.”
While NASA no longer combs the skies for extraterrestrial signals, it continues to fund space missions and research projects devoted to finding evidence of life on other worlds. Edward Weiler, an astrophysicist and associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA headquarters, told Smithsonian magazine: “As long as we have water, energy and organic material, the potential for life is everywhere.”
3. “The Moon landing was a hoax.”
According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 6 percent of Americans doubted that the Moon landing actually happened, while another 5 percent declared themselves “undecided.”
The Moon landing conspiracy theory has endured for more than 40 years, thanks in part to a thriving cottage industry of conspiracy entrepreneurs—beginning in 1974, when technical writer Bill Kaysing produced a self-published book, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.
Arguing that 1960s technology was incapable of sending astronauts to the Moon and returning them safely, authors and documentary filmmakers have claimed, among other things, that the Apollo missions were faked to avoid embarrassment for the U.S. government, or were staged to divert public attention from the escalating war in Vietnam.
Perhaps one reason for the durability of the Moon hoax theory is that it is actually several conspiracy theories wrapped up in one. Each piece of “evidence” has taken on a life of its own, including such accusations as: the astronauts’ film footage would have melted due to the extreme heat of the lunar surface; you can only leave a footprint in moist soil; and the American flag appears to be fluttering in the non-existent lunar wind.
The scientific debunking of these and other pieces of evidence can be found at NASA’s website—or, at least, that’s what we’ve been led to believe.
4. “During the 1990s, NASA deliberately destroyed its own Mars space probes.”
Mars is the planetary equivalent of Charlie Brown’s kite-eating tree. During the 1990s, NASA lost three spacecraft destined for the Red Planet: the Mars Observer (which, in 1993, terminated communication just three days before entering orbit); the Mars Polar Lander (which, in 1999, is believed to have crashed during its descent to the Martian surface); and the Mars Climate Orbiter (which, in 1999, burned up in Mars’ upper atmosphere).
Conspiracy theorists claimed that either aliens had destroyed the spacecraft or that NASA had destroyed its own probes to cover-up evidence of an extraterrestrial civilization.
The most detailed accusation of sabotage appeared in a controversial 2007 book, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, which declared “no cause for the [Mars Observer’s] loss was ever satisfactorily determined.”
Dark Horizon “came within one tick mark of making it onto the New York Times bestsellers list for paperback non-fiction,” bemoaned veteran space author and tireless debunker James Oberg in the online journal The Space Review. In that same article, he points out the book’s numerous errors, including the idea that there was never a satisfactory explanation for the probe’s demise. An independent investigation conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory concluded that gases from a fuel rupture caused the Mars Observer to enter a high spin rate, “causing the spacecraft to enter into the ‘contingency mode,’ which interrupted the stored command sequence and thus, did not turn the transmitter on.”
NASA did have a noteworthy success in the 1990s, with the 1997 landing of the 23-pound Mars rover, the Pathfinder. That is, of course, if you believe it landed on Mars. Some say that the rover’s images were broadcast from Albuquerque.
5. “Alan Shepard is A-Okay.”
Several famous inventions have been mistakenly attributed to the space program—Tang, Velcro and Teflon, just to name a few.
Most of these claims have been widely debunked. However, one of the most enduring spinoffs attributed to NASA is the introduction of the expression “A-Okay” into everyday vernacular.
The quote is attributed to astronaut Alan Shepard, during the first U.S. suborbital spaceflight on May 5, 1961. The catchphrase caught on—not unlike the expression “five-by-five,” which began as a radio term describing a clear signal.
Transcripts from that space mission, however, reveal that Shepard never said “A-Okay.” It was NASA’s public relations officer for Project Mercury, Col. John “Shorty” Powers, who coined the phrase—attributing it to Shepard—during a post-mission press briefing.
6. “NASA's budget accounts for nearly one-fourth of government spending.”
A 2007 poll conducted by a Houston-based consulting company found that Americans believe that 24 percent of the federal budget is allocated to NASA. That figure is in keeping with earlier surveys, such as a 1997 poll that reported the average estimate was 20 percent.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (23)
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
I know a couple of people who believe the moon landings were faked. I have to leave the room when they get started. Same bunch that believe in all the other trendy conspiracies that constantly pop up.
Posted by zippy on April 22,2011 | 11:25 AM
Thank you! These are very interesting, if not downright fascinating!
Posted by Vance Baker on April 22,2011 | 11:14 AM
The quote from the Right Stuff has been reversed in this article. The proper quote is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
Posted by DM Scott on April 21,2011 | 11:16 PM
The claim that the moon landings were a hoax was taken on a couple of years ago by the Mythbusters of cable TV. Among the supposedly "impossible" moon landing events that they demonstrated could actually happen in a real landing were the footprints, the shadows being cast at different angles, and certain aspects of reduced gravity human locomotion. The intrepid Adam and Jamie declared the hoax theory "busted."
Posted by Ed Cash on April 21,2011 | 09:11 PM
> Trying to say that some of the public might also be inspired by unmanned or robotic missions, does not disprove the reality that it is just not the same as sending humans to explore.
It's not the same. Robots can go further and learn more, for a fraction of the cost.
Posted by Fred on April 21,2011 | 02:04 PM
I enjoyed this article. But I must protest repeated references to a Mars rover named "Pathfinder." The mission was Pathfinder; the rover was named "Sojurner."
Posted by Bill Goodwin on April 18,2011 | 12:51 PM
" [...] and the costs of the Moon program became increasingly exorbitant."
of funds that are, at their most, less than 5% of a federal budget? That scenario underscores how very much we accomplished, with so very little funding. It is infuriating to see the way that we nickel-and-dime Science, while throwing boatloads of money at much-less-worthy programs and pet projects.
Posted by Tavi Greiner on April 18,2011 | 10:16 AM
#10 is not a myth, but rather a social/political opinion of which the author disagrees.
Posted by Bob on April 16,2011 | 01:25 AM
While the above article is true on some points, it unfortunately is wrong on several other points, and is thus guilty of perpetuating some myths of its own. A couple of example:
The article is wrong in claiming President Kennedy did not want Americans to reach the Moon. President Kennedy was very concerned about the Soviet Union's capability. It was President Kennedy who initiated the race to the Moon. He supported the plan to send humans to the Moon with both money and political backing. Whether or not he would have allowed for a "joint American-Soviet mission" is a would've/could've hypothetical, and nothing more. One thing that is clear, is that he supported sending humans to the Moon.
The author is partially right on the point that after President Kennedy's assasination, the race to the Moon did take on one aspect(among many others though) as sort of a homage and honor to our 35th President.
The article also is misleading on "manned versus unmanned spaceflight." Trying to say that some of the public might also be inspired by unmanned or robotic missions, does not disprove the reality that it is just not the same as sending humans to explore. In addition, the human versus robotic argument for space exploration is a false debate to begin with, we need both.
Posted by ser45 on April 16,2011 | 05:15 PM