Space and the American Imagination

In “Space and the American Imagination”, Howard E. McCurdy argues, “In a dramatic way, space exploration tests the connection between culture and technology. The visions associated with it stretch credulity and assault physical barriers. Standing alone, the vision of space exploration is one of the most fascinating that humans have conjured” (pg. 5). He continues, “Through metaphors and association, space activities interlock with the most important characteristics of the American experience” (pg. 6). In this way, “Space exploration has proved to be one of the most remarkably persistent stories that Americans tell about themselves – a defining characteristic of national culture” (pg. 7). To support his analysis and argument, McCurdy draws upon records from NASA and other early rocket scientists, works of popular fiction – in print, radio, and film – and the work of their authors, as well as the coverage of spaceflight in American media.McCurdy argues that the perception of spaceflight benefitted from earlier experiences of exploration coupled with years of popular fiction that prepared the public for the idea and developed in them certain expectations of what it would entail. The Cold War added to this. McCurdy writes, “Having helped convince the American public that space travel was real, boosters faced an additional challenge: they had to conjure images that would promote the will to act. For this purpose space advocates found a ready supplement in public anxiety about the Cold War” (pg. 60-61). Despite the infeasibility of using space as a nuclear launch platform, boosters promulgated this image to encourage American involvement. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, fear played an additional role with invocations of the Chinese space program and the threat of asteroids.Discussing another impetus for investing spaceflight, McCurdy invokes the role of prestige. He writes, “Nations engage in space exploration for a variety of reasons. They explore space for scientific discovery and understanding. They use space as a high ground for national defense. They derive commercial benefits, both directly as in the case of communication satellites and indirectly through ‘spinoffs’ from space exploration. They do so for reasons of national prestige” (pg. 94). He continues, “The space program became a means fro demonstrating national competence. If the United States could land Americans on the Moon, the nation could do anything else to which its citizens set their minds” (pg. 94). This competence outlasted other government institutions until the Challenger disaster followed by issues with Hubble, the Galileo Jupiter spacecraft, and the loss of Mars Observer.According to McCurdy, the expectation of encountering extraterrestrial life made sense when placed in context alongside other travelers’ and explorers’ tales of strange peoples and plants. Even as science chipped away at the possibility of encountering intelligent life in our own solar system, the dream of exploration lingered. McCurdy writes, “During the 1950s advocates of space exploration worked hard to promote their dreams. They convinced the public that space travel was something desirable and real, not just the fantasy of a small group of believers. Drawing on cultural traditions and public expectations, they transformed fantastic ideas into a vision that produced moon trips, planetary investigations, and space telescopes. Their most far-reaching efforts led to discoveries that quickly outdistanced the vision that made the efforts possible” (pg. 153).McCurdy argues that the significance of the frontier, though fallen out of favor with historians, continues to play a key role in space exploration. It offers the possibility of continuing to use the frontier as a national narrative following the perceived end of terrestrial exploration. Further, the drive for space stations drew upon the concept of frontier outposts. Even this, however, represented the conflict between expectations and reality. McCurdy writes, “As NASA officials learned, it was hard to design a station that simultaneously met public expectations and budgetary constraints” (pg. 200). Those expectations also played a role in spaceflight, where the public expected spacecraft to follow the example of aircraft. McCurdy writes, “Although hundreds of scientific papers have been written on the technology of interstellar travel, most people learn about exotic propulsion systems though works of imagination” (pg. 223). McCurdy points to the USS Enterprise from “Star Trek” as an example of this trend. These public expectations eventually led the way for women astronauts, though the Soviet Union long preceded the United States in this regard. McCurdy concludes with the impact of how space travel changed peoples’ perceptions of the Earth itself. He writes, “Images of the whole Earth reshaped not only public consciousness but also the NASA space program. Given those images, NASA initiatives gradually redirected resources aimed at the heavens so as to examine the Earth” (pg. 305).

This excellent book summarizes the political and cultural factors that led to how and why the U.S. space program developed. Just because something can be done technologically doesn't mean it will be. In McCurdy's words, "between the discovery and the invention lies the imagination" - people have to visualize a possibility as credible before sufficient support or will can be summoned to create the institutions or policies needed to actually do it.McCurdy gives an illuminating overview of the development of the U.S. space program and specific areas of why certain paths were chosen and others not. While people may know many of these basic facts, the author puts it into a historical/sociological/cultural context that sheds new light on why things happened the way they did. And although he doesn't address it explicitly, there are obvious implications for what to do and not to do for those who hope we can return to the next great phase of human exploration of space.The tone is scholarly and dispassionate without being off-putting to the interested lay reader. And it also avoids post-modern mumbo-jumbo while still being a very solid and modern analysis. Some reviewers have criticized the book's structure (finding it meandering) but I didn't at all - perhaps because I read the new revised 2011 edition (?).Highly recommended and definitely worth a read.

This book covers a topic I have long been interested in -- and does it in a comprehensive and interesting way. It is a fascinating read that provides valuable insight into the transition from science fiction into science fact, and explores the mindset of the American landscape along the way. Space cadets and Space explores alike. Price, but a valuable read for those interested in this important aspect of the great space race to the stars.

I must agree with the popular critical review for this text. The overall message is average, definitely not work I'd expect from such a well known scholar. The sections of this book are laden with spelling errors, missing words, and repeat words. From the start there is a constant battle between the content and undergraduate presentation. Unlike Launius, I do not find the information in this book revolutionary. The content would fit better, reduced to only necessary information, in a magazine article.I'd take Launius' review with a grain of salt. He co-authored a book with McCurdy titled Robots in Space a few years before McCurdy released Space and the American Imagination.There should have been some better editing. A second edition with much of the fluff removed and editing would be welcome in my collection.

McCurdy, Space and the American ImaginationA very interesting and entertaining book, but it was spoiled for me by the sheer number of misspellings and instances of bad grammar. You’d think the Smithsonian Institution would have more pride in their publications than to publish a book so poorly copy edited and proofread. By the way, no matter how many times you use it, “reenforce” is not a word.Other mistakes:The alien invader in the 1951 film The Thing was most definitely not “carrot-shaped”; it was clearly humanoid in appearance.“The first Apollo astronauts to circle the Moon returned with images of a crescent Earth rising above lunar plains.” p. 227. Actually, the earth was more than half-full.“Phenomenon” is the singular, “phenomena” the plural form—not the other way around! Several instances of this mistake.