4 ms·

I'm actually surprised that the truth is that close to the story. I've always assumed that it was largely invented ex nihilo. The actual story is actually not t

I'm actually surprised that the truth is that close to the story. I've always assumed that it was largely invented ex nihilo. The actual story is actually not too far off, and is more interesting.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Panoramix 13y ago
I'm also surprised, 1 million sounds like a lot of money for such a thing.
- veemjeem 13y ago
  I'm guessing most of that money went to pay salaries, just like raising a $1M seed round in the Valley. Since Fisher invested their own money, it's hard to determine if the $1M was only used for the space pen. I would assume they didn't hire that many new engineers and simply allocated existing engineers to the space pen project. On the books it looks like $1M invested, but that amount might be significantly less.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  $1m sounds like peanuts for a bunch of R&D on a mass-market high-tech consumer product.
- hornetblack 13y ago
  Around $7 million in todays money. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+million+USD%2C++in+1965 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+million+USD%2C++in+19...
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Conversely, if you short out a panel due to conductive something and the spacecraft is lost due to the malfunction, it starts to look like maybe you should've invested more money in developing your flight instruments. Space is a harsh environment - things sent up there need to be carefully considered.
bcoates 13y ago
But the myth gets the moral exactly backwards -- the pens solved a real problem, and because both NASA and Fisher knew most of the value of the deal was getting the "the same pen they use in SPACE!" endorsement, the government got the pens for almost free.
- fidotron 13y ago
  There's more to it than that. The Russians simply had a completely different philosophy to how the interior of spacecraft was supposed to be, as such their panels were not susceptible to the problems of graphite dust etc. This also had the side effect of making Russian capsules of the same era much more comfortable than their American equivalents, although the landing procedures could more than nullify whatever comfort benefits they had.
  - micampe 13y ago
    > although the landing procedures could more than nullify whatever comfort benefits they had. Could you expand a little bit here, what to you mean?
    - pavel_lishin 13y ago
      If I had to guess, it's the fact that Russian spacecraft tend to land on the ground, and typically fire a rocket burst right before landing to slow down even more. It's the equivalent of getting kicked in the ass by a rocket-powered donkey, twice. American craft land in the water, which is much more forgiving to begin with, and I don't think they fire rockets before hitting the surface. (Although, I'd love to hear more about the other design differences.)
      - Luc 13y ago
        The modern Soyuz are pretty good though - 'soft landing' engines reduce the speed at impact to less than 5 feet per second (!), and there's shock-absorbing seats. Archive.org link due to government shutdown in the US: http://web.archive.org/web/20130928200146/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/landing.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130928200146/http://www.nasa.go...

I'm actually surprised that the truth is that close to the story. I've always assumed that it was largely invented ex nihilo. The actual story is actually not too far off, and is more interesting.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Panoramix 13y ago

I'm also surprised, 1 million sounds like a lot of money for such a thing.

veemjeem 13y ago
I'm guessing most of that money went to pay salaries, just like raising a $1M seed round in the Valley. Since Fisher invested their own money, it's hard to determine if the $1M was only used for the space pen. I would assume they didn't hire that many new engineers and simply allocated existing engineers to the space pen project. On the books it looks like $1M invested, but that amount might be significantly less.
anigbrowl 13y ago
$1m sounds like peanuts for a bunch of R&D on a mass-market high-tech consumer product.
hornetblack 13y ago
Around $7 million in todays money. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+million+USD%2C++in+1965 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+million+USD%2C++in+19...
- XorNot 13y ago
  Conversely, if you short out a panel due to conductive something and the spacecraft is lost due to the malfunction, it starts to look like maybe you should've invested more money in developing your flight instruments. Space is a harsh environment - things sent up there need to be carefully considered.

bcoates 13y ago

But the myth gets the moral exactly backwards -- the pens solved a real problem, and because both NASA and Fisher knew most of the value of the deal was getting the "the same pen they use in SPACE!" endorsement, the government got the pens for almost free.

fidotron 13y ago
There's more to it than that. The Russians simply had a completely different philosophy to how the interior of spacecraft was supposed to be, as such their panels were not susceptible to the problems of graphite dust etc. This also had the side effect of making Russian capsules of the same era much more comfortable than their American equivalents, although the landing procedures could more than nullify whatever comfort benefits they had.
- micampe 13y ago
  > although the landing procedures could more than nullify whatever comfort benefits they had. Could you expand a little bit here, what to you mean?
  - pavel_lishin 13y ago
    If I had to guess, it's the fact that Russian spacecraft tend to land on the ground, and typically fire a rocket burst right before landing to slow down even more. It's the equivalent of getting kicked in the ass by a rocket-powered donkey, twice. American craft land in the water, which is much more forgiving to begin with, and I don't think they fire rockets before hitting the surface. (Although, I'd love to hear more about the other design differences.)
    - Luc 13y ago
      The modern Soyuz are pretty good though - 'soft landing' engines reduce the speed at impact to less than 5 feet per second (!), and there's shock-absorbing seats. Archive.org link due to government shutdown in the US: http://web.archive.org/web/20130928200146/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/soyuz/landing.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130928200146/http://www.nasa.go...