Historical Studies In The Societal Impact Of Spaceflight
Historical Studies in theSocietal Impactof SpaceflightSteven J. DickEditor
Historical Studies in theSocietal Impactof Spaceflight
Historical Studies in theSocietal Impactof SpaceflightSteven J. DickEditorNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationOffice of CommunicationsNASA History Program OfficeWashington, DC2015NASA SP-2015-4803
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataHistorical studies in the societal impact of spaceflight / Steven J. Dick, editor.p. cm. — (Societal impact series ; v. 3)Includes bibliographical references and index.“NASA SP-2015-4803.”1. Astronautics—Technology transfer—History. 2. Astronautics—Publicopinion—History. 3. Astronautics—Social aspects—History. 4. UnitedStates. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I. Dick, Steven J.TL865.H58 2010338.973’06--dc222009030014This publication is available as a free download athttp://www.nasa.gov/ebooks.
vContentsIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiPART IOPINIONChapter 1. The Impact of Space Exploration on Public Opinions,Attitudes, and BeliefsWilliam Sims Bainbridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1PART IISPINOFF?Chapter 2. Societal Impact of NASA on Medical TechnologyWilliam Sims Bainbridge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Chapter 3. NASA’s Role in the Manufacture of Integrated CircuitsAndrew J. Butrica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149Chapter 4. NASA’s Role in the Development of MEMS(Microelectromechanical Systems)Andrew J. Butrica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251PART IIITHE WORLD AT LARGEChapter 5. Powering Space Exploration: U.S. Space Nuclear Power,Public Perceptions, and Outer Planetary ProbesRoger D. Launius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331Chapter 6. NASA and the Environment: An Evolving RelationshipW. Henry Lambright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383Chapter 7. Societal Impacts of Applications SatellitesDavid J. Whalen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
viHistorical Studies in the Societal Impact of SpaceflightChapter 8. Impacts of the Apollo Program on NASA, the SpaceCommunity, and SocietyEligar Sadeh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491Chapter 9. An Astrosociological Perspective on the Societal Impactof SpaceflightJim Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 577The NASA History Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 599
viiIntroductionFollowing the publication in 2007 of the Societal Impact of Spaceflightvolume in the NASA History series, the NASA History Division commissioned a series of more in-depth studies on specific subjects.1 This volumepresents those studies to scholars and the public, and represents what is hopedwill be a continuing series in the effort to understand the mutual interactionof space exploration and society—part of a larger need to understand therelationship between science, technology, and society.Emphasizing the importance of public attitudes toward space, the volumeopens with sociologist William Sims Bainbridge’s study of the impact ofspace exploration on public attitudes. Based on seven decades of questionnaire survey data, and combining historical and social science approaches, thechapter considers both changes in public opinion over time and key themesthat have shaped public opinion. Because the study surveyed vast ranges andquantities of data, it uncovered a number of historical and social science questions that deserve more focused study in the future, integrating historicaldata and methodologies into statistical analysis of questionnaire survey data.Because NASA has entered a new era of space development, it is ever moreimportant to understand changing public opinion in a historical context.“Spinoff” is the first aspect that comes to mind for most people whothink at all about the impact of space exploration, those technologies thatare thought—wrongly or rightly—to have emanated from the space program. Part II consists of case studies of specific potential spinoffs and explicitly raises the difficult questions of what can be considered spinoff and howmuch of any particular claimed spinoff can be attributed to NASA—thus theinterrogatory “Spinoff?” title for this section rather than the usual declarative “Spinoff.” Though NASA claims many spinoffs and publishes an annual1.Steven J. Dick and Roger D. Launius, eds., Societal Impact of Spaceflight (Washington,DC: NASA SP-2007-4801, 2007), available online at http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801.pdf.
viiiHistorical Studies in the Societal Impact of SpaceflightSpinoff report,2 it seldom parses its claims very finely. The three chapters inthis part aim to do just that. Bainbridge’s study of medical technology reinforces the judgment of social scientists who wrote 30 to 40 years ago thatspinoffs are a problematic concept: they may not reflect the most importantchannels by which NASA contributes to scientific and technological progress,even if they do provide coherent stories to communicate with the generalpublic about the history of space exploration.Andrew J. Butrica tackles the oft-made claim that NASA played a majorrole in the early development and use of integrated circuits. In particular,he addresses a specific question: What was the role of NASA in improvingthe manufacture of integrated circuits during the Apollo era? Butrica findsthat the answer is not so simple. In a second and related essay, he showsthat another claim—that the multibillion-dollar industry known as MEMS(microelectromechanical systems) originated at NASA—was actually sucha close collaboration with nearby Stanford University that this story is alsomuch more complex than usually thought. Butrica’s conclusions are also inaccord with an earlier finding that even if a particular spinoff can be attributed in whole or in part to NASA, attribution to individuals is still moredifficult. As James E. Tomayko found in writing his report on Computersin Spaceflight: The NASA Experience, “often in corporations and governmentagencies individual achievement is buried within the institution. NASA is noexception. It was exceedingly difficult to get people both in the [A]gency andin contractor organizations to identify who did what, or even to take personalcredit where appropriate.”3 This reminds us that, for better or worse, we havecome a long way from the lone figure working in a laboratory.Part III encompasses a variety of diverse studies of NASA’s impact on theworld at large, ranging from the technology of radioisotope thermal generators and the public controversy over the use of these nuclear componentsin spacecraft (Roger D. Launius’s chapter), to NASA and the environment(W. Henry Lambright’s chapter), the impact of applications satellites (DavidJ. Whalen’s chapter), and the impact of the Apollo program (Eligar Sadeh’schapter). At another level, space exploration has spawned new disciplines—ranging from astrobiology and astrochemistry to astrogeology—and hasenlarged the boundaries of age-old problems by contemplating such areas as2.3.Issues of Spinoff are available at http://spinoff.nasa.gov/index.html (accessed 20 April 2015).James E. Tomayko, Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience, NASA CR-182505(Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Division, 1988), availableat http://history.nasa.gov/computers/Compspace.html, Preface.
Introductionixastrotheology.4 One of the least developed disciplines, but ripe for exploration, is astrosociology—the subject of the final chapter (by Jim Pass) in thisvolume. This section demonstrates that our entry into space has altered theintellectual landscape of the 20th and 21st centuries in ways large and small,broadening our horizons in ways we sometimes fail to recognize.This volume is the third in the NASA History subseries on the societalimpact of spaceflight and follows a book entitled Cosmos and Culture: CulturalEvolution in a Cosmic Context.5 That volume makes clear, far beyond the scopeof the present work, how much cosmos and culture have become intertwinedin the human experience. NASA and other space agencies around the worldhave contributed much to our understanding of the universe, enriching cultural worldviews and revealing the potential for other cultures throughoutthe universe. Not a bad legacy for 50 years of activity beyond the Earth’satmosphere.Steven J. DickFormer NASA Chief HistorianWashington, DCApril 20154.5.On the history of astrobiology—the study of life in the universe—see Steven J. Dick andJames E. Strick, The Living Universe: NASA and the Development of Astrobiology (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2004). On astrotheology, see Steven J. Dick,ed., Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the Theological Implications(Philadelphia: Templeton Press, 2000).Steven J. Dick and Mark Lupisella, eds., Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in aCosmic Context (Washington, DC: NASA SP-2009-4802, 2009), online at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4802.pdf.
Part IOpinion
1Chapter 1The Impact of Space Exploration onPublic Opinions, Attitudes,and BeliefsWilliam Sims Bainbridge1. IntroductionSince July 1944, when a Gallup poll asked two questions indirectly relatedto the German V-2 rocket program, scores of major questionnaires haveincluded items about space exploration. The end of the Space Shuttle era isa good time to survey the history of public understanding and enthusiasm,because there have already been several historical periods and episodes duringwhich influences have differed. The aims of this project are to survey the fullsweep of American questionnaire studies offering insights about the publicimpact of space exploration and to connect the findings solidly to concretehistorical developments.Surveys of public opinion serve at least three functions in modern society.First, they support democratic institutions by informing policymakers aboutthe mood of the citizenry. Research by political scientist Alan Monroe showedthat American public policy was largely consistent with the results of opinion polls on policy issues, although more consistent in the 1960s and 1970sthan afterward.1 Second, polls provide interesting stories for journalists, andthe results of a poll are often treated as news themselves. Beginning in 1967,CBS began doing its own polls in association with the New York Times; NBCstarted polling in 1973; ABC followed suit in 1981; and CNN partnered withGallup from 1992 until 2006.2 Third, polls offer a wealth of data for socialscientists interested in tracing trends or testing theories. This study expandsthe social-scientific function into a historical method for understanding thepast. It is important to realize that different functions imply somewhat different questionnaire designs and analytic techniques.1.2.Alan D. Monroe, “Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980–1993,” Public OpinionQuarterly 61, no. 1 (1998): 6–28.Seymour Sudman, “The Network Polls: A Critical Review,” Public Opinion Quarterly 47,no. 4 (1983): 490–496.
2Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of SpaceflightThe 1936 U.S. presidential election was a watershed for opinion pollmethodology, because a Gallup poll based on rigorous sampling procedurescorrectly predicted Roosevelt’s victory, whereas a much more massive polldone by the Literary Digest following its traditional unsystematic methodsincorrectly predicted a Landon victory.3 Subsequent national polls, like manyreported throughout this chapter, employed complex sampling procedures,partly based on the principle that large random samples reduce many of thebiases that more convenient samples would introduce and partly based onquota sampling to make sure that groups in the population are properly represented. It is important to understand that there are two very different butequally valid traditions of questionnaire research in social science, and thisproject will use them both:1. Opinion research, in political science and sociology, which attempts touse random samples of the general public and is usually limited to asmall number of very simple space-related items, frequently as few asone, that can be understood by everybody.2. Research on the clustering of beliefs, attitudes, and values, typicallysocial-psychological (in psychology or sociology), which places lessemphasis on random samples and employs a large number of questions, with many aimed at respondents who are better educated andmore knowledgeable than average.Random samples have two primary advantages. First, they are the best wayof estimating population parameters—the percentage of the larger population that holds a particular attitude, or the fraction of registered voters whoplan to vote for a particular candidate. Second, random sampling is requiredfor some statistical procedures, notably estimates of statistical significance.Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to achieve anything likea simple random sample in practice. Costs have forced survey researchers touse stratified or quota samples; increasing fractions of the public refuse toparticipate, and the changing nature of telephone service makes samplingby random digit-dialing extremely problematic. Another disadvantage is thathigh cost has limited the number of questions that can be included on anygiven topic.Nonrandom samples were disparaged for many years in social sciencebecause they lacked the parameter-estimation and statistical-significanceadvantages of random samples, but the increasing problems with random sampling and the new opportunities for research over the Internet have muted thisearlier criticism. The chief advantage of online polling is the cost-effectiveness3.George Gallup, The Sophisticated Poll Watcher’s Guide (Ephrata, PA: Science Press, 1976).
The Impact of Space Exploration on Public Opinions, Attitudes, and Beliefs3when the aim is to include many questions on a given topic. Multiple questions allow statistical analysis of reliability of measurement, construction ofmulti-item scales that measure a phenomenon more precisely than any oneitem could achieve, and the use of methods such as factor analysis to identifyclusters of items or dimensions of meaning that reveal much about the conceptual structure of the topic. In the case of Web-based questionnaires, whichmay have very large numbers of respondents, the lack of a random samplecan be compensated for to a great extent by exploring the impact of controlvariables and by conducting internal replication that compares results acrosssubgroups among the respondents.Different methodologies naturally connect to different kinds of theoriesand are best suited for addressing different types of questions. Random samples naturally fit the democratic ideals that each adult citizen should have avote equal to every other, and that public policies should reflect the will of thecitizenry. More specialized samples can be justified on the traditional anthropological basis that some individuals are especially well qualified to representtheir culture or subculture. There is no need to decide between these differentapproaches, with their distinctive advantages and disadvantages, and here Ipresent valuable results from opinion studies of many kinds.Consider the two questions in the July 1944 Gallup poll: “A Swedishnewspaperman says the Germans are now building robot bombs which canhit cities on our East Coast. Do you believe this is true? Do you think that inanother twenty-five years such flying bombs will be able to cross the AtlanticOcean?” At that point in the war, the V-1 “buzz bomb” cruise missile hadjust been introduced. The V-2 rocket had not yet made its appearance inwar but was being tested over the North Sea, and Swedes had heard about it.In fact, German rocket engineers were working on early designs for a threestage transatlantic rocket, what would have been the first ICBM if it hadbeen completed, but the public knew nothing about it. Indeed, few respondents probably had a sound basis for answering the questions. However, theiranswers were not far off the mark, because only 20 percent felt the Germanswere already building such a weapon, but 70 percent thought one wouldexist in a quarter century.4 Thus a fundamental issue is how well informedthe public was and whether it had an adequate basis for responding to aparticular question.In October 1947 a Gallup poll asked, “How long do you think it will bebefore man will be able to fly to the moon?” The largest group, 38 percent,said “never.” Another 23 percent would not venture a guess, and 16 percent4.George H. Gallup, ed., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935–1971 (New York: RandomHouse, 1972), p. 456.
4Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflightfailed to answer. Only 21 percent mentioned a specific time, but the medianguess of 20 to 29 years turned out to be on the mark.5 A decade later, inOctober 1957, just days after the launch of Sputnik, Gallup asked, “Howlong do you think it will be before men in rockets will reach the moon?”This time 52 percent were able to answer, and the median answer, 12 years,turned out to be exactly right.6 In December 1949 and again in January 1955the Gallup poll asked, “In the next 50 years, do you think men in rocketswill be able to reach the moon?” The percentage who said “yes” increasedfrom 15 percent to 38 percent over this span of five years. The fact that theseoptimists turned out to be right does not prove their superior understandingof the technical challenges. In 1949, 63 percent believed that “trains and airplanes” would be run by atomic power in 50 years, and 88 percent believedthat an “absolute cure for cancer” would be found in the second half of the20th century.7 Neither of these breakthroughs has in fact occurred.In May 1961, the month after Yuri Gagarin became the first human toorbit Earth, 21 percent of Americans believed men in rockets would reach theMoon in fewer than five years, and another 13 percent said exactly five years.In contrast with these optimists, 4 percent said six to nine years, 14 percentsaid ten years, 6 percent said more than ten years, and 9 percent said “never.”The remaining third said they did not know.8 Thus, in the first four years ofthe space age, the fraction lacking an opinion dropped from 48 to 33 percent.In retrospect, questions such as these can help us to understand how poorlyinformed many people were at the beginning of space history and allow us totrace their developing awareness of the potential of space exploration as theyears passed.5.6.7.8.Poll of about 1,500 American adults by Gallup, 24–29 October 1947, Roper CenterUSGALLUP.47-406.QKT11. Note: The websites and polling data referenced in thischapter were accessed early in 2007, and many may have changed or vanished since then.Note that some URLs default to a different page from the one where data for this studywere originally found, and other pages were revised over time. In addition, researchers mayfind the “Wayback Machine” tool at http://archive.org/index.php helpful to locate previousversions of Web pages. Polling data was derived from the following sites: the GallupOrganization, http://www.galluppoll.com/; the Roper Center, http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/; the Odum Institute for Research in Social Science, http://152.2.32.107/odum/jsp/home.jsp; the Computer-assisted Survey Methods Program, http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm; and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, http://peoplepress.org/.Poll of 1,573 American
vii Introduction F ollowing the publication in 2007 of the Societal Impact of Spaceflight volume in the NASA History series, the NASA History Division com-missioned a series of more in-depth studies on spe
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
ISO 22301:2012 Societal security. Business continuity management systems.Requirements ISO 22311:2012 Societal security .Video-surveillance Export interoperability ISO/TR 22312:2011 Societal security. Technological capabilities ISO 22313:2012 Societal security. Business continuity management systems.Guidance ISO 22320:2011 Societal security.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
