More fear than surprise
Sputnik came as a surprise to most Americans - but it should not have, observes John Logsdon, Director, of the Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
"Our movies and television programs in the fifties were full of the idea of going into space. What came as a surprise was that it was the Soviet Union that launched the first satellite. It is hard to recall the atmosphere of the time. Fallout shelters, rabid anti-Communism, a sense of imminent danger from without and within," Logsdon said.
With the launch of the Soviet satellite, Logsdon said, the reaction was more fear than surprise, because it showed clearly that the United States was no longer safe behind its ocean barriers. "The claim that who controlled space would control the Earth seemed plausible, and the Soviet Union had taken the first step towards that control," he said.
"Now, almost a half century later, we find it hard to realize just what a shock Sputnik was. Space launches have become routine, and the use of satellites integrated into modern life," Logsdon said.
Logsdon points to then U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower as being both right and wrong when he tried to minimize the importance of Sputnik. On one hand, he was right in observing that the satellite did not pose an imminent threat to U.S. security.
On the other hand he was wrong in two ways, Logsdon said. "He misjudged the short-term public reaction to Sputnik and was unable to calm American fears. Also he did not recognize many of the ways that going into space would transform life on Earth."
First things first
For Joan Johnson-Freese, chair of the National Security Decision Making Department at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, Sputnik 1 kick-started the United States' technological renaissance.
"The successful launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957 was a gauntlet thrown to the United States. It created a political and technical challenge that the country, and the Eisenhower Administration specifically, had to address," Johnson-Freese said. "The impact on the American public had not been anticipated. The public outcry that followed clearly triggered the creation of NASA, as the organization to lead the United States in the very public space race that followed," she said.
In that race, Johnson-Freese added, cutting-edge technology was the weaponprestige was the measure of success. "The technological advancements made during that time transformed civil society and military warfare in ways still evolving," she said.
Marcia Smith, a space policy analyst at the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the U.S. Congress, said that one cause-and-effect of Sputnik was the lunar "space race."
"So for space aficionados, it likely was a good thing that the Soviets achieved that "first." It's an interesting philosophical exercise to ruminate on how different the world -- the world of space exploration, at least -- might look today if the United States had been first instead," Smith said.
Motivation and passion
Veteran shuttle astronaut and newly appointed NASA Deputy Administrator, Frederick Gregory, said that Sputnik 1 still lingers in his mind.
That Soviet success, as did the flights of Alan Shepard, John Glenn, and the Apollo missions, catapulted Gregory toward his astronaut career.
"Those are the things in my history that keep me motivated," Gregory said. "Sputnik was quite an eye-opener for me. At age 16 I thought I knew everything in the entire world. But clearly I didn't."
"When I look back at those risky things that countries did, not recognizing whether they were good or bad countries, I knew then that's what I was going to do for the rest of my life," Gregory told SPACE.com.
While Sputnik, Shepard, Glenn, Apollo, Skylab and the Shuttle are all exciting ventures, Gregory said it's time to do something new.
"Basically, we've been doing the same thing that Sputnik did. And I think that after more than 40 years now, that's long enough for that. We need to move off to the next step," Gregory said. "This is passion for me," he said.
9/11 and Sputnik
There's reason to remember Sputnik, suggests author Paul Dickson.
Much like the 9/11 terrorist attacks, these surprising events evoked a provocative response from the United States. "It is when the unpredictable happensAmerica gets stronger as it gets smarter," he said.
Dickson has detailed the ripple effects stemming from the Soviet satellite launching in his critically acclaimed book: Sputnik: The Shock of the Century, published last year by Walker & Company.
When Sputnik 1 went up, it was a night in America when "Leave It to Beaver" premiered on television, Dickson said. "We were building big tail fins on automobiles. Everyone was dreaming of a color TV, wanting a Princess phone and a second car," he said.
Another Sputnik surprise in the making
Sputnik 1 was soon to be followed by Sputnik II, a far-heavier satellite that carried a passenger - the dog Laika. America's own stab at hurling a satellite into space in December 1957 -- a grapefruit-sized Vanguard 1 -- flew all of 17-inches before falling back onto its launch pad and exploding.
From the body politic in America, there were worries voiced of atomic bombs dropped from space "like kids dropping rocks from a highway overpass," Dickson said. "America went into the Christmas of 1957 in an absolute panic," he said.
That was a far cry from an earlier characterization of the Soviet Union's technical skills.
"People were saying we didn't have to worry about a suitcase atomic bomb from the Russiansbecause they didn't have the technology to build the suitcase," Dickson said. "The fact of the matter is that we read them wrong."
Dickson said the future likely holds another Sputnik 1 like surprise.
"The most direct next Sputnik will be when China puts two people into orbit sometime next year. They'll be jumping right to the U.S. Gemini program that flew in the 1960s,'" Dickson said.
advertisement
