| I understood that anecdote to be true. Fisher spent $1M (of "then" money) creating a "space pen", capitalized on the unique opportunity and publicity, and went from a startup to a $60M company. They knew that the astronauts could use a pencil, but that wouldn't be very profitable for them. For Fisher, it was a capitalist triumph, and symbolized American values. For the U.S.S.R. it symbolized U.S. wastefulness, and was portrayed in a negative light. For the media, if they can portray something as terrible, they will. It sells papers. So that is kind of a capitalist triumph as well. In the end, it turned out to be dangerous to use pencils in space (graphite turns into a floating flammable dust while writing), so eventually both the Soviets and the Americans bought space pens. Which was great, as Fisher recouped about $1K just from NASA! More importantly, that marketing ploy may have saved the entire spacecraft - the law of unintended consequences! |
And I mean, you clearly know that version isn't true. As you say, fisher only recouped $1k from NASA (I think was just the original order, I believe they're still used today), and the soviets also switched over to the pen (incidentally at the same price, $2.39/pen). You say "eventually", but the soviets only took a year to switch.
And while we're at it, NASA used pencils before the space pen just like the soviets did, which makes the "while the soviets did something else" part even less true.
> that marketing ploy may have saved the entire spacecraft - the law of unintended consequences
I'm reasonably confident that "avoiding flammable substances that tends to give off flammable flakes (graphite)" was an intended consequence, not an unintended one.