In this piece for the Washington Post, movie director James Cameron gives his analysis of the NASA budget, reminds us of the inspirational importance of space exploration and, that when it comes to winning popular support for space, “rockets really do run on dreams”.
The inspirational power of space and rocket ships is nothing new, and we can learn from history in properly valuing the less tangible motivating, emotional, and cultural impacts of future programs.
In the 1950s and 60s – a ‘Golden Age of American Science ‘ – folk thrilled at the prospect of great wheel-shaped space stations in orbit, and conquering the cosmos through atomic power. 
Sputnik energised the US rocket program that led to Apollo and the space shuttle. And the space station has arrived – even if it does fall short of Clarke and Kubrick’s vision for ‘2001’.
Perhaps blinded by the blistering activity that characterised the period leading up to Apollo, it’s easy to forget that rocket ship vocabularly was a part of the popular psyche long before the space race of the cold war years.
Buck Rogers first appeared in the magazine Amazing Stories in 1928, and as a newspaper comic strip in 1929.
The outer space exploits of Buck and his futuristic companion Wilma captivated and fired the scientific and technological imagination of a generation of young people. Some became the scientists and engineers of the Golden Age, and some, like my father-in-law, who as a schoolboy in 1940s Glendale made the copper artwork above, found themselves working at an embryonic NASA.
Tim,
This post prompted me into a bit of a rant. It wasn’t a rant about this post, but it was prompted by it. I hope you know that I mean all said ranting with a huge amount of respect for both you and your opinion. Anyway, I’d be really interested to know what you think:
http://www.echae.com/scienceproject/archives/2010/02/does_anyone_else_think_space_i.html
Aside from that , I think you are bang-on about how far back the ‘rocket ship vocabulary’ stretches, even if I’m a little sceptical about how applicable it still is today. If you are interested, I really enjoyed this book (especially chapter four), on wonder and Early Modern Science. I also, personally, loved this study of 20th century children’s science fiction, much of which takes place in rockets.
Alice
Alice, thanks for the comment and link to your post. Lots of interesting points there.
There certainly is a question for me too around whether today ‘space stuff’ is inspiring young folk (in particular) to do constructive things with their lives – one of which might be taking up a career in science and technology – to the degree it supposedly did in the past. One of your other points was around concern that today’s commentators blithely recycle the assumptions and rhetoric from a previous age.
As regards evidence, I guess for the historical situation we are, as you say, looking at the various testimonials from scientists who list space as a developmental influence (along with chemistry sets and such like). This sort of evidence seems to pop up in popular accounts and ad-hoc studies, and I suspect they’ll be an academic treatise on it somewhere?
Then there is the anecdotal and personal evidence, like my father-in-law’s story and, for that matter, my own story and that of my contemporaries. I’ve in the past wondered whether these reports, and my own memories, are subject to some kind of retrospective romanticism; but as far as their influence on my own actions is concerned, I’ve come out against that. It’s been said so many times before and you know all this, but the Apollo period, especially the moon landings from 1969 to 1972, was quite unusual in terms of space being in the public eye. I know the scene in the Tom Hanks movie where the US audience has lost interest by Apollo 13 but, counter to that, it’s not that long ago my parents removed the last vestiges of the whole sequence of mission stickers, through to Apollo 17, that as a kid I’d collected and stuck to my wardrobe door. Evidence if you like.
As with other areas where science influences the broader populace, I think it’s important to look at how individual groups – however we might classify them (I went to a grammar school in the 70s, so might today be seen as privileged/elitist – right?) were and are influenced by spacey stuff, particularly given that certain groups often have impact on society disproportionate to their size, or even visibility. It would be interesting to see how researchers in this area have cut the data re social groupings and other demographics.
Looking to the situation post Apollo and particularly today, what is the evidence that kids are inspired by space? Again, I think any research would need to consider individual demographics: e.g. is the general populace bored now but the swotty kids still motivated?
Lunar landings have been replaced by the Shuttle and unmanned exploration of the planets; is that an equivalent turn on?
Your point about whether space is boring is interesting, and I think the discussion goes beyond space. The most mundane museum object can become captivating to those who have read a 500 page history about it and its historical context. In some aspects it’s the same with space; and I’d throw evolution in there too. Looked at from that perspective, the more remote-sensing, probe-based, and unmanned planetary missions of the post-Apollo era may rate lower on the instant gratification scale for the uninformed majority, but represent a deeper, broader, motivating, interest for some. So I guess I’m agreeing with you; if someone doesn’t know what they’re looking at, there is a lot to do with space and astronomy that is deathly boring. But perhaps no more so than the earthier, blobbier, artifacts in the British Museum; opera period; and much of Shakespeare. (I digress, but am reminded of Microsoft’s space flight simulator ‘game’ in its day. Hopeless unless you were into the detail and the physics behind it.)
So there I go committing two science communication sins in one paragraph; counter to the prevailing paradigm, with appeals to both elitism and the need for a good dose of PUS before folk can start enjoying science properly :-). (For non-scicom folk, the Public Understanding of Science PUS movement, in the UK at least, is associated with branding the public – in a bad way – as having a deficit of scientific knowledge that needs filling – forthwith!)
And I agree it’s a fascinating topic for research – seeing how folk feel about these things today. Really interesting, relevant topic. Screaming to be funded.
But there is a piece of research out there you know? – albeit small sample, in the form of the Exquisite Corpse of Science ;-). Seriously, I was quite surprised how much space stuff and rockets featured in the pics. O.k. – coming clean, most of the drawings are by scientists and their children; but it’s valid data for ‘that group’ all the same.
Anyhow, that was a ramble. Hope it made some kinda sense.
Tim
It has just occurred to me that a ‘prehistory’ of space travel (well, pre-NASA) would make for an AMAZING pop sci book.
It’s probably already been done though.
Alice,
Yes, absolutely – re a book. Certainly see myself writing more on this blog-wise.