Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight

A belief exists in the United States about public support for NASA's human spaceflight activities. Many hold that NASA and the cause of the human exploration of space enjoyed outstanding public support and confidence in the 1960s during the era of Apollo and that public support waned in the post-Apollo era, only to sink to quite low depths in the decade of the 1990s. These beliefs are predicated on anecdotal evidence that should not be discounted, but empirical evidence gleaned from public opinion polling data suggests that some of these conceptions are totally incorrect and others are either incomplete or more nuanced than previously believed. This article explores the evolution of public support for space exploration since the 1960s. Using polling data from a variety of sources it presents trends over time and offers comments on the meaning of public perceptions for the evolution of space policy and the development of space exploration in the United States.     

Can the demos make a difference? Prospects for participatory democracy in shaping the future course of US space exploration

US space exploration policy deliberations tend not to include citizens who lack direct, vested financial interests in the space enterprise. Could expanding the circle of US space policy development players to involve citizens more aptly serve space exploration and the interests of American democratic society in the 21st century? I evaluate the merits and feasibility of citizen participation, drawing upon democratic theory and scholarship analyzing public participation in techno-scientific matters, previous experiences of public involvement in space exploration policy formation, and reflections on my professional experiences in space policy development. I argue that public engagement will enrich the debate surrounding the US future in space and may point toward a program American citizens will support as a meaningful future in the cosmos. I suggest three guiding principles and outline four mechanisms that, if embraced by US space policy makers, could foster meaningful public participation in informing the US space exploration agenda.     

A gateway for human exploration of space? The weak stability boundary

NASA's plans for future human exploration of the Solar System describe only missions to Mars. Before such missions can be initiated, much study remains to be done in technology development, mission operations and human performance. While, for example, technology validation and operational experience could be gained in the context of lunar exploration missions, a NASA lunar program is seen as a competitor to a Mars mission rather than a step towards it. The recently characterized weak stability boundary in the Earth–Moon gravitational field may provide an operational approach to all types of planetary exploration, and infrastructure developed for a gateway to the Solar System may be a programmatic solution for exploration that avoids the fractious bickering between Mars and Moon advocates. This viewpoint proposes utilizing the concept of Greater Earth to educate policy makers, opinion makers and the public about these subtle attributes of our space neighborhood.     

The origin of the smaller, faster, cheaper approach in NASA’s solar system exploration program

The current emphasis on smaller, faster, cheaper (SFC) spacecraft in NASA’s solar system exploration program is the product of a number of interacting – even interdependent – factors. The SFC concept as applied to NASA’s solar system exploration program can be viewed as the vector sum of (1) the space science community’s desire for more frequent planetary missions to plug the data gaps, educate the next generation of scientists, provide missions to targets of opportunity, and enable programmatic flexibility in times of budgetary crisis; (2) the poor publicity garnered by NASA in the early 1990s and the resultant atmosphere of public criticism (creating an opportunity for reform); (3) The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization’s and the National Space Council community’s desire to advance the Space Exploration Initiative and their perception that the NASA culture at the time represented a barrier to the effective pursuit of space exploration; (4) the effective leadership of NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin; and (5) the diminishing budget profile for space sciences in the early 1990s. This paper provides a summary of the origin of the smaller, faster, cheaper approach in the planetary program. A more through understanding of the history behind this policy will enable analysts to assess more accurately the relative successes and failures of NASA’s new approach to solar system exploration.     

Evolving public perceptions of spaceflight in American culture

There is a belief that exists in the United States about public support for NASA's activities. The belief is almost universally held that NASA and the cause of space exploration enjoyed outstanding public support and confidence in the 1960s during the era of Apollo and that public support waned in the post-Apollo era, only to sink to quite low depths in the decade of the 1990s. These beliefs are predicated on anecdotal evidence that should not be discounted, but empirical evidence gleaned from public opinion polling data suggest that some of these conceptions are totally incorrect and others are either incomplete or more nuanced than previously believed. This paper explores evolution of public support for space exploration since the 1960s. Using polling data from a variety of sources it presents trends over time and offers comments on the meaning of public perceptions for the evolution of space policy and the development of space exploration in the United States.     

Explaining public support for space exploration funding in America: A multivariate analysis

Recent studies have identified the need to understand what shapes public attitudes toward space policy. I address this gap in the literature by developing a multivariate regression model explaining why many Americans support government spending on space exploration. Using pooled data from the 2006 and 2008 General Social Surveys, the study reveals that spending preferences on space exploration are largely apolitical and associated instead with knowledge and opinions about science. In particular, the odds of wanting to increase funding for space exploration are significantly higher for white, male Babyboomers with a higher socio-economic status, a fondness for organized science, and a post-secondary science education. As such, I argue that public support for NASA's spending epitomizes what Launius termed “Apollo Nostalgia” in American culture. That is, Americans benefitting most from the old social order of the 1960s developed a greater fondness for science that makes them more likely to lament the glory days of space exploration. The article concludes with suggestions for how to elaborate on these findings in future studies.     

Space exploration policy: Towards an operational vision

This article examines the historical and social context of space exploration policy. It seeks to reconcile a contradiction between the visionary grandeur of space and public perceptions of space exploration as the province of a narrowly-focused political interest group. The author argues that perceptions of the space age are artificially restricted by dating its origins to Sputnik and Apollo and allowing it to be dominated by science and technology objectives devoid of a more encompassing social framework. Guiding principles for developing space exploration activities in a broader conceptual and operational framework are offered.     

Building and maintaining the constituency for long-term space exploration

The exploration of space is a long-term endeavor that will require strong public support to weather societal and political changes over the period of its implementation. In August 2006, George Mason University's Center for Aerospace Policy Research organized a workshop to address this issue. The sustainability of space exploration was investigated from a variety of perspectives by invited experts from the space sector as well as from the market research and public relations fields. This paper summarizes the results of the workshop. It presents market research data along with recommendations for an active strategic communications effort as well as public engagement to enhance public support for space exploration, especially among the younger age groups which tend to be uninterested in space activities.     

Space visions from a new generation

Through experiences at the International Space University's 1995 Summer Session, the authors became aware of generational differences of opinion with regard to visions for future space activities. The faculty members had expansionary visions of space exploration and colonization, while the students, having grown up in a very different environment, had concerns which centered around using space to improve life on Earth. This paper addresses possible explanations for these different perspectives. The visions of this younger generation are those which will shape the space policy of the future and are even beginning to shape it today.     

The Global Exploration Roadmap and its significance for NASA

The Global Exploration Roadmap reflects the collaborative effort of twelve space agencies to define a long-term human space exploration strategy which provides substantial benefits for improving the quality of life on Earth and is implementable and sustainable. Such a strategy is a necessary precondition to the government investments required to enable the challenging and rewarding missions that extend human presence into the solar system. The article introduces the international strategy and elaborates on NASA's leadership role in shaping that strategy. The publication of the roadmap, a reflection of the space landscape and multilateral agency-level dialog over the last four years, allows NASA to demonstrate its commitment to leading a long-term space exploration endeavor that delivers benefits, maintains strategic human spaceflight capabilities and expands human presence in space, with human missions to the surface of Mars as a driving goal. The road mapping process has clearly demonstrated the complementary interests of the participants and the potential benefits that can be gained through cooperation among nations to achieve a common goal. The present US human spaceflight policy is examined and it is shown that the establishment of a sustainable global space exploration strategy is fully consistent with that policy.     

The US civil space sector: alternate futures

The initiation of a new vision for exploration, as articulated by US President George W. Bush on 14 January 2004, has excited much interest. This article analyzes the dynamics and potential for changes in the processes and participants in future space policy and space exploration activities. It examines a range of possible alternative paths for NASA and the US government's space exploration activities, the international space community and the private sector in the articulation and pursuit of future space exploration endeavors. It concludes that the new vision for exploration brings about both an opportunity and indeed a necessity for movement towards new and innovative methods and institutions for the effective conduct of multidimensional and multilateral space exploration activities in the future.     

The Space Policy Summit

A Space Policy Summit of high-level individuals from government, industry and international organizations was held in Houston, TX immediately before the World Space Congress in October 2002. It provided a forum for the discussion of long-term space policy issues in the fields of commercial space exploitation, public good applications and space exploration. This report presents the background to the decision to hold such a summit, and discusses selected issues and recommendations.     

The next steps in exploring deep space—A cosmic study by the IAA

This paper presents the results of an IAA cosmic study on the Next Steps in Exploring Deep Space, the goal of which is to provide a vision for the scientific exploration of space by humans in the first half of the 21st Century. The study provides a roadmap for a systematic, logical, and science-driven plan for exploration of the Solar System and unlocking the mysteries of the Universe—a program that builds gradually and systematically to establish a permanent presence at each outpost along the way, and that builds the communications, transportation and other logistical infrastructure as it proceeds. The study suggests a set of long-term scientific goals for space exploration that provide the context for carrying out scientific investigations at specific destinations in space. An architecture is derived for the space flight infrastructure required to pursue these science goals at the specified destinations, including examination of the relevant policy and public engagement in this enterprise.     

Modeling international cooperation for space exploration

Space exploration into the twenty-first century is contingent upon the ability of states to forge an appropriate vehicle for international cooperation. A theoretical framework that explains international cooperation in space exploration is proposed. This framework encompasses scientific, technological, political, and economic initial conditions, state and nonstate political actors, and models of cooperation that explain how initial conditions and actors interact to realize cooperative outcomes. It is hypothesized that the prevailing initial conditions favor certain political actors over others which, in turn, promote a specific model of cooperation. Cooperative policy outcomes are examined and assessed vis-à-vis case studies of cooperation in space exploration. On this basis, policy recommendations that engender effective cooperative outcomes in space exploration are suggested.     

An international symbol for the sustained exploration of space

As humanity prepares to extend its reach beyond low-Earth-orbit for the first time since the 1970s, a new symbol of international cooperation is needed to further promote the message of peace and collaboration such exploration entails. The space race that occurred between the USSR and the USA is an ill-suited model for long-term sustained space exploration because it is too costly and too resource-intensive for a single nation to bear. While competition is healthy for technology development, the success of a sustained space exploration strategy lies beyond technological capabilities. It lies in international cooperation, space policy, and public support. Without these, no program can realistically achieve a sustained presence in space beyond low-Earth orbit. To this effect, this paper proposes a cost-effective first step in the form of a universal symbol which, when placed alongside national flags displayed on hardware and astronaut/cosmonaut/taikonaut flight-suits, would send a strong message to the world that space exploration is done for the benefit of humanity as a whole, not just for spacefaring nations. The “Blue Marble”, the first complete picture of Earth taken from space by humans in 1972, fits this universally appealing symbol. This symbol requires no political collaboration between countries, yet is an image that anyone, anywhere in the world, can relate to regardless of nationality, ethnic origin or religious beliefs. Placed on the shoulder pads of human ’nauts – ambassadors of planet Earth – or prominently displayed on spacebound hardware, this symbol would send a universal message to present and future generations that, in space, our planet is working together for the benefit of everyone.     

Redefining safety in commercial space: Understanding debates over the safety of private human spaceflight initiatives in the United States

In 2009 President Obama proposed a budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that canceled the Constellation program and included the development of commercial crew transportation systems into low Earth orbit. This significant move to shift human spaceflight into the private sector sparked political debate, but much of the discourse has focused on impacts to “safety.” Although no one disputes the importance of keeping astronauts safe, strategies for defining safety reveal contrasting visions for the space program and opposing values regarding the privatization of U.S. space exploration. In other words, the debate over commercial control has largely become encoded in arguments over safety. Specifically, proponents of using commercial options for transporting astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) argue that commercial vehicles would be safe for astronauts, while proponents of NASA control argue that commercial vehicles would be unsafe, or at least not as safe as NASA vehicles. The cost of the spaceflight program, the technical requirements for designing a vehicle, the track record of the launch vehicle, and the experience of the launch provider are all incorporated into what defines safety in human spaceflight. This paper analyzes these contested criteria through conceptual lenses provided by fields of science and technology policy (STP) and science, technology, and society (STS). We ultimately contend that these differences in definition result not merely from ambiguous understandings of safety, but from intentional and strategic choices guided by normative positions on the commercialization of human spaceflight. The debate over safety is better considered a proxy debate for the partisan preferences embedded within the dispute over public or private spaceflight.     

Canada's early space policy development 1958–1974

In the absence of a mature body of literature on the origins and evolution of the Canadian space program, recent official publications have arbitrarily chosen 1974, the year that Canada's civilian space policy was ratified in the House of Commons, as the popular date of origin. However, this start date ignores several significant policy documents that influenced Canada's space program development prior to that year. This article examines policy that shaped Canada's space program during the ‘golden age’ of space exploration (1958–1974), and will demonstrate that the true origins of the Canadian space program date back much earlier that the current perception.     

Why space exploration should be a global project

Apollo should not serve as a model for the many programs for lunar and planetary exploration currently making headway: it was a unilateral effort whose generous budget would be inconceivable today. Yet President Kennedy was an advocate of cooperation in major space missions, an attitude that makes perfect sense today, when so many agencies have ambitious exploration plans. The importance of President G.W. Bush's ‘Vision for Space Exploration’, by providing a focus for NASA and others, has been underestimated. It should give us a chance to find out whether a long-term objective of moving humans off the home planet is really feasible—surely the point of exploration.     

Space nuclear power: technology, policy, and risk considerations in human missions to Mars

There is a large discrepancy between potential needs for nuclear propulsion and power systems for the human exploration of Mars and the current status of R&D funding, public opinion, and governmental support for these technologies. Mission planners and spacecraft designers, energized by the recent claims of possible discovery of life on Mars and responding to increased public interest in the human exploration of Mars, frequently propose nuclear reactors and radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for interplanetary spacecraft propulsion and for power supply on the surface of Mars. These plans and designs typically assume that reactors will be available "on-the-shelf," and do not take the extensive R&D costs required to develop such reactors into consideration. However, it is likely that current U.S. policies, if unchanged, will prohibit the launch of nuclear reactors and large RTGs in response to a perceived risk by the public.     

Visions of exploration

The word “exploration” threads its way through every discussion of human space flight and often headlines national policy statements about the US space agency. Yet this concept, so rooted in our culture, remains remarkably ill-defined. In this paper, we examine various presumptions implicit in the term and its ramifications for federally supported space endeavors. We argue that historical examples of exploration, widely used by policy makers, often make poor models for contemporary space travel. In particular, historical precedents of exploration set up a land-biased view of discovery, a restriction which impedes full expression of the Vision for Space Exploration and its possible scientific returns. These same precedents also set up a view of discovery that is biased toward in situ human presence, a view that modern technology is rendering increasingly absurd.