The introduction to the recent book Bad Buying starts with a story about the NASA space pen. As the story goes, realizing that regular pens would not work in low gravity environments, NASA supposedly spent years and millions of dollars to develop one that would work in space. According to the tale, an American astronaut bragged about the space pen to a Russian cosmonaut, who responded that they used pencils. The story is an example that organizations often spend money on things they don’t need. Simpler solutions often exist that are cheaper and entail less risk. But is the story true?
As it turns out, this story is an urban legend. Both U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmonauts used regular wooden pencils in the early 1960s. However, standard pencils are not ideal for use in space. The tips can break off and create hazardous debris in low gravity. They are also flammable. According to an article in Scientific American, in the 1960s NASA’s astronauts used mechanical pencils beginning with the Gemini program. Russian cosmonauts also switched to writing with grease pencils on plastic slates. Like many government purchases NASA overpaid for its mechanical pencils, as each cost the space agency an average $128.89. While that still seems like a lot to pay for a pencil, in today’s dollars it equates to an astounding $1,500. Independently of NASA, in the early 1960s the Fisher Pen Company spent $1 million of its own money in developing a pen that would work in space. Their pen will work in low gravity environments, underwater, and in conditions of extreme heat and cold. Both NASA and Russia have been using Fisher’s space pens since the late 1960s. Back at that time, NASA spent the current year equivalent of between $20 and $25 per space pen. While not cheap, they are much more affordable than the $1,500 mechanical pencil they had been using. You can still buy the original space pen directly from Fisher for $62.
While I like the book Bad Buying, I am troubled by its lack of attention to detail. Two other nonfiction books I have read lately also play loose and fast with facts. As an author, I know there is a lot of work involved in writing and publishing a book, but I do try to verify quotes, facts, and references before I include them in my writing. Authors and editors need to be more careful with the details. If you are interested in risk management, you can read Chapter 1 of my book Solving for Project Risk Management: Understanding the Critical Role of Uncertainty in Project Management for free or watch a 10-minute view overview on YouTube. You can also order it from Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
Hi Christian. I, too, am troubled by the lack of attention to detail regarding fanciful stories used to help sell books. The Scilly Naval Disaster of 1707 led to many a tall tale. Some 1400-1800 sailors went down in shipwrecks, not the least of which was their leader, Admiral Cloudesley Shovell. A “myth associated with the disaster alleges that a common sailor on the flagship tried to warn Shovell that the fleet was off course, but the Admiral had him hanged at the yardarm for inciting mutiny.’ The story first appeared in the Scilly Isles in 1780, with the common sailor being a Scilly native who recognized the waters as being close to home but was punished for warning the Admiral…Naval historians have repeatedly discredited the story, noting the lack of evidence in contemporary documents, fanciful stock conventions, and dubious origins.[5][21][20] However, the myth was revived in 1997 when author Dava Sobel presented it as an unqualified truth in her book Longitude.[22]:11-16 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scilly_naval_disaster_of_1707).”
With all of the hard work you put into it, your book does not suffer these kinds of imaginings.
Comments are closed.