Back in the 1960’s it is said that NASA specified the requirements for a pen capable of writing in zero gravity and spent $1 million dollars developing the ‘space pen’; faced with the same problem the Russians took a pencil.

The apparent lesson of this story is a good one, that we can be tempted to spend too much time, effort and money to develop an over-specified solution to a problem, when a perfectly acceptable simple (and cheap?) alternative exists.

The real lesson is rather more subtle. In fact, the pencil was used by both American and Russian astronauts for many years as an effective writing instrument. However, broken leads were a hazard in a zero gravity environment, where they could float into eyes, or equipment causing a short circuit. In addition, pencils (and their leads) would burn rapidly in a pure oxygen environment.

NASA did not at any time specify the requirements for or commission a pen. Paul Fisher, identified the ‘real’ need for a safer pen and developed the pressurised ball pen, which he presented as a better solution to NASA. The ‘space pen’ has gone on to be a huge commercial success for Fisher.

This story highlights the importance of exploring the real need; thus identifying the appropriate direction for the design process.