Explorer 1 at 50

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Apparently, the engineers and scientists who launched America's first satellite partied as hard as they worked. They dressed up as outhouses for the masquerade ball and rolled on the floor with their bop. The mostly twentysomething team members at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory named their project after a card game and joked (?) about smoking pot to calm their nerves while waiting to hear whether their bird had flown or crashed.












Explorer 1, like Sputnik, was certainly a product of its age -- driven by Cold War rivalries, launched by a missile based on the Nazi's V-2, executed by guys who wore ties and used slide rules -- but it also ushered in a new age. People often comment on the economic benefits of space -- the buck for the bang -- but at least equally important are the conceptual benefits. Not just the other planets but also our own planet would have remained a cipher without the vantage point of space. The very idea of talking about our planet as a planet is a product of this. When so much of culture consists of dressing up old ideas in new packages, the scientific discoveries and human boundary-pushing of the Space Age inject some genuine novelty into our lives.


One of my favorite parts of the Explorer 1 mission is the rocket itself. The upper stages were mounted on bearings so that they could spin like a drill bit as they rose, stabilizing them. The satellite was simply the upper stage, and it reached orbit without any precise control. In fact, the engineers weren't sure exactly what its orbit was until they heard its signal by ham radio.


Our podcast this week has an interview with one of the engineers who worked on the project. Several good stories on Explorer 1 have appeared over the last few days,, especially in the LA Times. Last October, I wrote an article on the anniversary of Sputnik with more thoughts on the benefits of the Space Age and prospects for the future.


Although Explorer 1 burned up in the atmosphere in 1970, the Vanguard 1 satellite launched in March 1958 still buzzes over our heads. With patience and a good backyard telescope, you can see it for yourself. The orbital data are here and general advice about looking for satellites is here.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe