BBC0%

From Mercury to Artemis: The evolution of mission control 19%

By Richard Hollingham0%

3/29/2026, 2:02:18 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 142 hits. Analysis detected 1,377 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,344 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.6% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,901 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.80% of the article peer group.

Space missions can succeed or fail from the support they get from mission control. 
Here, we look at the changing shape of Nasa's most important room in space. 
Nasa's original mission control room was housed in Building 1385 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. 
Designed to oversee America's single-man Project Mercury flights and early two-man Gemini missions in the early 1960s, Mercury Control Center became the template for every mission control since. 
Each console was responsible for a different spacecraft system, all decisions were overseen by a flight director sitting at the back, and all communication with the astronauts was through a capsule communicator (Capcom). 
The main screen featured a mechanical capsule, suspended on wires that mimicked the flight of the spacecraft. 
The circles on the screen represented the communications ground stations and ships dotted around the world. 
Chris Kraft 
Chris Kraft developed the concept of mission control while working as a military aircraft test engineer. 
When he joined Nasa as one of its first employees in 1958, it had no rockets, spacecraft or astronauts. 
Ten years later, Kraft would oversee the first manned flight around the Moon. 
Much of this success was thanks to the systems and procedures he set in place. 
While Kraft is rightly celebrated, it was unwise to get on the wrong side of him. 
When Mercury astronaut Scott Carpenter became distracted during his 1962 mission, it almost ended in disaster. 
Behind on his procedures, he was in danger of plummeting to Earth out of control. 
The astronaut's behaviour infuriated Kraft who swore Carpenter would never fly into space again. 
He didn't. 
Apollo mission control 
When two new mission control rooms were built at the new Manned Space Center (later renamed the Johnson Space Center) on the outskirts of Houston, Texas, for the Apollo missions to the Moon, they were at the cutting edge of technology. 
The mechanical spacecraft on the front screen was replaced by a back-projected, digitally generated representation of the flight, and the many consoles displayed reams of data alongside rows of brightly coloured buttons. 
Behind all this was an advanced global communications system and five of the latest IBM 360 computers to analyse, in real time, every aspect of the spacecraft's speed, trajectory and health. 
Glynn Lunney 
Glynn Lunney sits at his shiny new console during a simulation exercise shortly after the new mission control centre opened in 1965. 
Each workstation was responsible for a different system on the spacecraft. 
The handles either side of the monitors were so they could be easily replaced if they malfunctioned  a reasonably frequent occurrence with cathode ray tubes (before flatscreen technology, TV repair used to be a lucrative business). 
Many of the switches are for communication and controllers could 'loop' into conversations with their own teams in other locations, speak directly to the flight director or everyone else in the room. 
Lunney would go on to become a flight director and ultimately oversee the Space Shuttle programme. 
Landing on the Moon 
The capsule communicators are the only link between the ground and space. 
This means there is always a single voice speaking to the astronauts, avoiding any confusing or conflicting messages. 
In the 1960s, the capcoms were astronauts themselves  known and trusted by their colleagues and familiar with the spacecraft. 
This picture of the capcom position was taken during the first Moon landing, Apollo 11, in 1969. 
Left to right, it shows astronauts Charlie Duke (who would later walk on the Moon during Apollo 16), Jim Lovell (Apollo 8 and Apollo 13) and Fred Haise (Apollo 13). 
When Neil Armstrong reported "The Eagle has Landed", Duke's response from mission control is almost as famous: "You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue here," he said. 
"We're breathing again!" 
Celebration 
This is what American success looked like in 1969, as the mission controllers gathered to celebrate the end of Apollo 11. 
Many of these young white men were recruited straight out of college and were still only in their 20s (even the most senior were only in their 30s). 
Most are dressed identically with short-sleeved white shirts, ties and pens in their top pockets. 
They used 'pocket protectors', plastic sleeves designed to prevent pens leaking into the fabric (still available today). 
The first woman to work in mission control was Poppy Northcutt, who joined in the mid-1960s. 
Failure is not an option 
You can almost feel the tension. 
Captured during Apollo 13, mission controllers are studying a weather map of the proposed landing site in the South Pacific Ocean. 
Apollo 13 suffered an oxygen tank explosion on the way to the Moon, imperilling the lives of the three astronauts and leading flight director Gene Kranz to coin the phrase "failure is not an option". 
When this picture was taken, mission controllers had already saved the spacecraft and kept the three astronauts alive for a return to Earth. 
Now, it seemed, the weather might be too dangerous for splashdown. 
Lunney, now a flight director, is seated at the centre of the picture. 
Among those looking on is Kraft, who appears to be holding a cigar. 
In the end, the weather held out and the astronauts were recovered without incident. 
Space Shuttle 
Little seems to have changed in this picture from 1984. 
Shirts, ties, pens in the pocket and smoking still very much de rigueur in mission control. 
Only the digital watch and haircuts give away the era. 
The man with the pipe is Jay Greene, one of the flight directors for space shuttle STS 51-A. 
The ambitious mission involved retrieving two malfunctioning satellites from orbit. 
And although we only see men in this picture, the astronaut operating the robotic arm on the shuttle was one of Nasa's first female astronauts, Anna Fisher. 
Mission control itself had undergone a series of technology upgrades by this time  with new computers, colour monitors and improved communications. 
Orion 
Mission control has come a long way in 60 years, but the essential concepts and layout created by Kraft still endure. 
This 2022 picture shows flight controller Julie Reed as the flight dynamics officer console during Artemis I, an uncrewed test flight of the Orion capsule. 
The new mission control room features touchscreens, colour monitors and laptops. 
Although the occupants are more diverse and smoking is banned, the room is still dominated by display screens at the front, and the flight director occupies a desk overseeing the team. 
Mission Evaluation Room (Mer) 
Since the very first launches, every mission controller has been supported by a team of experts. 
These are the engineers who understand the intricacies of software or systems and can support the mission when things don't go to plan. 
During the Apollo missions, the Mer team dealt with everything from minor computer glitches to saving the astronauts of Apollo 13. 
Nasa recently commissioned the new Mer for Artemis, bringing together representatives for all the spacecraft together in one room. 
They include a European team overseeing the spacecraft service module, which makes up half the spacecraft. 
Meanwhile in Alabama… 
The hexagonal lighting motif extends to control rooms at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. 
Already home to the International Space Station (ISS) science control room, this centre will be used to support science operations during lunar missions. 
Controllers will work with astronauts carrying out science experiments on the Moon and may, eventually, oversee operations on a future lunar base. 
Restoring mission control 
Today, Houston has two main operational control rooms  one for the ISS and the new one for Artemis. 
Of the two original Apollo control rooms, Mission Operations Control Room 2 (MOCR-2) was preserved as a National Historic Landmark in 1985. 
Visitors were able to go inside and even sit at the flight director's console. 
But over the years the room became increasingly shabby and worn. 
In 2019, Nasa began a project to restore MOCR-2 to its former Apollo-era glory. 
Today, it is almost exactly as it was when men first landed on the Moon, as you can see below. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.7%Richard Hollingham: 0.9%BBC: 3.0%Confirmation Bias1.7%This article: 2.3%Richard Hollingham: 0.5%BBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.3%This article: 1.3%Richard Hollingham: 3.4%BBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic1.3%This article: 4.2%Richard Hollingham: 1.2%BBC: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 2.5%Richard Hollingham: 1.6%BBC: 1.1%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 3.1%Richard Hollingham: 2.1%BBC: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 1.8%Richard Hollingham: 4.4%BBC: 4.7%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.5%BBC: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%Richard Hollingham: 0.9%BBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.3%BBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Richard Hollingham: 4.9%BBC: 3.6%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 0.8%Richard Hollingham: 1.2%BBC: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.8%This article: 3.6%Richard Hollingham: 6.8%BBC: 4.4%Negativity Bias3.6%This article: 1.7%Richard Hollingham: 1.1%BBC: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.7%This article: 1.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.7%BBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error1.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Richard Hollingham: 0.9%BBC: 1.0%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.4%BBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Richard Hollingham: 4.6%BBC: 4.6%Halo Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Richard Hollingham: 1.0%BBC: 1.1%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 2.2%Richard Hollingham: 1.0%BBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.2%Richard Hollingham: 4.5%BBC: 5.5%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 0.9%Richard Hollingham: 0.6%BBC: 1.1%False Dilemma0.9%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.6%BBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Richard Hollingham: 3.0%BBC: 5.5%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%Richard Hollingham: 6.1%BBC: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 1.3%Richard Hollingham: 0.5%BBC: 0.5%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 10.6%Richard Hollingham: 2.8%BBC: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.6%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.2%BBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.2%BBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.7%BBC: 0.6%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.6%Richard Hollingham: 0.3%BBC: 0.4%Composition/Division1.6%This article: 1.2%Richard Hollingham: 1.4%BBC: 3.5%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Richard Hollingham: 2.6%BBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Richard Hollingham: 0.6%BBC: 1.2%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 2.2%Richard Hollingham: 0.5%BBC: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 2.7%Richard Hollingham: 2.3%BBC: 5.8%Biased Writer Voice2.7%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.4%BBC: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 1.1%BBC: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Richard Hollingham: 2.9%BBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1344 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers3.9%attributed speech1,291writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kraft • 2 words • 0.0% coverageChris Kraft • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageGlynn Lunney • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageNasa • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNasa • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nasa

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words62% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice+40.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Nasa: 42.4%42.4%Unattributed Quote-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Nasa: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Nasa: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.