INTRODUCTION: IMAGINATION
The ability to imagine is the largest part of what you call intelligence. You think
the ability to imagine is merely a useful step on the way to solving a problem or
making something happen. But imagining it is what makes it happen.
---Michael Crichton, Sphere, 1987
Humans possess an astounding capability. They can imagine themselves living in
circumstances very different than the ones in which they currently exist. They can
communicate those visions in such a way as to motivate other people to desire them.
Using tools and technology, humans can then reconstruct their circumstances so that the
visions they imagine become real.
In few areas is this power more dramatically illustrated than in the realm of space
exploration. Humans imagined themselves building winged spaceships, defying gravity,
and flying those machines into space. They imagined themselves building large, earthorbiting space stations. They imagined flying to the Moon, landing and returning to
Earth, and eventually establishing lunar research stations. They imagined their ability to
construct robotic spacecraft that could fly to other planets and without the advantages of
humans on board orbit those spheres, land on them, and traverse their surfaces. They
imagined large, orbiting space telescopes. They imagined humans establishing colonies
on other planets and devices that could investigate earth-like objects around nearby stars.
They imagined the discovery of extraterrestrial life. Exploration advocates imagined
ways in which they could use current events such as the cold war to enlist support for the
achievement of these goals.
In fifty years, just a half century after the launch of the first small, earth-orbiting
satellite, humans accomplished more than half of those goals. Given enough time,
humans may realize visions even more astounding than those. The human capacity for
turning vision into reality could be as unlimited as the realm into which those efforts
intrude.
This book deals with space exploration and the manner in which it has been
imagined, principally in the United States of America. It recounts what people thought,
how they sought to convert vision into reality, and the obstacles they encountered. It
concludes with some observations about the process by which visions inspire public
action and comparisons to other public policies in which imagination has played a
significant role. It attempts to explain why the spacefaring vision proved so powerful
that humans confronted with adversity chose to bend reality to fit their visions rather than
abandon their beliefs. Many books have been written about space exploration—some
about decisions like the one to go to the Moon; others about the space race between the
United States and the Soviet Union; and more about individual projects and the
machinery that flies in space.1 This is a book about vision, imagination, popular culture,
and its translation into achievements that make dreams come true.
Imagination involves the process of forming mental images of events or processes
that are not actually present. A mental image produced by the imagination may be called
a vision, although the latter typically refers to an idea of considerable scope that broadly
1
depicts situations that have not yet occurred. Images and visions are transmitted in
various ways. Some reach their audience through works of fiction, which depict
characters and events that are not real. Others are proclaimed by advocates seeking to
popularize new concepts. In the realm of space exploration, the underlying vision has
been transmitted through the media of fiction, popular science, books, movies, television,
radio, newspapers, magazines, and paintings.
The most pervasive images amplify the ideas, customs, and beliefs held by the
public at large: what is generally known as popular culture. Persistent ideas become part
of the popular culture themselves. They become part of the stories that communities of
people tell about themselves that help to define who they are and the things in which they
believe.
We know that visions have a transformational effect, encouraging private action
and public change. Transformations often begin when humans alter their subjective
interpretations of the world. Subjective interpretations consist of the assumptions that
people make about the circumstances in which they live. Humans once assumed illness
to be the byproduct of demonic possession a punishment for sins. Healers set aside that
subjective belief by imagining that humans had the power to cure the ill. Changes in
objective reality followed, including the discovery of cures. In another case, social
reformers attacked the view that poverty was “nature’s way” and thereby helped to create
the intellectual foundation for the modern welfare state. Conservationists convinced the
public – which previously had viewed wild areas as savage and unfriendly places – that
tranquility and spiritual renewal could be found in the wilderness. The national park
movement was born. Aviation enthusiasts imagined a future in which people could fly,
promised that it would change the world, and made it occur.2
History repeatedly shows that humans, having changed their subject
interpretations of the world, can change objective reality as well. Arthur C. Clarke, the
great science fiction writer, once observed that any sufficiently advanced alteration in
objective reality “is indistinguishable from magic.” His thoughts on the subject became
known as Clarke’s laws. “When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
impossible, he is very probably wrong.” The great diversity of national cultures around
the world demonstrate that humans are capable of creating widely different subjective
interpretations of the world. Clarke insisted that humans could change objective reality
as well. “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible,” Clarke announced, “is
to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”3 What once seems like magic
becomes real.
In the conventional view, cultures are more malleable than technology. Cultures
are the creations of human beings whereas technology is subject to the laws of nature.
Yet the opposite may be true. Cultural beliefs prove remarkably persistent, lasting
hundreds of years, while technological change in the modern world occurs with
remarkable speed. A change in objective reality – or technology – need not violate the
laws of physics in order to occur. It must merely do that which was once thought to be
impossible.
In this respect, space exploration tests the human imagination like few other
undertakings. It stretches credulity and assaults physical barriers. Standing alone, the
vision of space exploration is one of the most fascinating that humans have conjured.
2
Who could have predicted, a few years before the first humans learned how to fly in the
atmosphere, that barely a half century later they would construct rocket ships capable of
orbital and interplanetary speeds? Who could have then imagined that humans, scarcely
a dozen years after launching the first earth orbiting artificial satellites, would land
astronauts on the moon and return them safely home? As acts of imagination, these are
fantastic visions. As achievements, they are magical.
The vision of space exploration is impressive on its own terms. Yet it is made
even more powerful by the manner in which it interacts with social traditions broader
than the vision itself. The vision of space exploration owes much of its power to broader
cultural beliefs.
Consider the search for extraterrestrial life. For centuries, humans have debated
whether living entities might inhabit other worlds. Early Greek writers supported the
notion; Aristotle denied it. Many modern scientists favor the idea; others suggest that
conditions supporting the development of complex life forms such as those on Earth are
extremely rare.4 To gather evidence, scientists have dispatched spacecraft to investigate
conditions on Venus and Mars. Others have established listening stations to search for
electromagnetic signals that alien civilizations might be broadcasting to us.
Through four decades of watching and listening, no signs of extraterrestrial life
have been found. The surface of Venus is too hot, the exterior of Mars too sterile, and no
messages from outer space have been received. Rather than deter further investigation,
these findings have simply promoted calls for more. Part of this perseverance draws its
force from the scientific method, in which theories are constantly tested and refined. Yet
a large part of it arises from a series of events that have created a collective social
predisposition that favors the expectation of life on other worlds.
The whole history of human exploration on the earth supports the presumption
that expeditions dispatched to distant places will discover strange life forms in the places
explored. Medieval travelers returned from foreign lands with stories of exotic creatures.
Sea captains and the naturalists that accompanied them returned from long voyages with
sketches and samples of biological wonders. Modern scientists have discovered life
forms on the bottom of the ocean that need no sunlight to survive. Space exploration
offers an opportunity to extend the exploration process into new realms and that line of
extension supports the notion that what humans find in the cosmos will be like what they
have located on the earth. The analogy may be misplaced, but it has kindled the desire to
explore.
Analogies like the one presented above permeate the vision of space exploration.
They promote the cause. Space exploration may be viewed as an extension of terrestrial
exploration and the advantages associated with it. It has been viewed as an extension of
the frontier story that characterized the American experience for four hundred years.
Military officers view space as an extension of the “high ground” that gives nations
enjoying it a security advantage. Analogies make a complex subject easy to explain to an
often inattentive public. Rather than explain the intricacies of cosmic radiation or toxic
atmospheres, it is easier to say that space exploration will be “like the frontier.”
Through analogies and association, space activities interlock with the most
important characteristics of the American experience. The effect gives the space
exploration vision a level of desirability far beyond what it would receive if it had to
stand on its own. Space exploration promises to maintain the spirit of innovation and
3
discovery that has made American strong. It connects to the corporate experience in a
nation that has grown rich through business corporations. It expands the experience with
aviation in a nation that invented heavier-than-air flight. It affirms the idea that progress
occurs through science. It has helped to define the conservation movement and it is
associated, in an odd sort of way, with the American agonies over slavery and servitude.
The associations are so strong that Americans would want to believe in space travel even
if it was not true. The associations give space travel a faith-like quality, encouraging
belief even in the face of doubt and adversity.
The means by which humans communicate this vision further reinforce it.
Communities of imagination come into being when people who might be physically
separated from one another acquire a means for sharing common beliefs. Just as the
printing press allowed new religious denominations to arise and committees of
correspondence (along with delivery of the mail) encouraged fresh nations to form, so the
electronic and print media help people to believe in the desirability of space travel.
Magazines printed paintings of spaceships and extraterrestrial bodies before humans and
machines ventured there. Science fiction writers told fantastic tales. Movies and
television shows promoted the vision of fast space ships, large space stations, and
extraterrestrial life. Aliens may not live among us in fact, but they inhabit the mass
media in large numbers from movies like “E.T.: The Extraterrestrial” to television shows
like “Star Trek.”
Stories about space occupy a special place in American society well above the
status of space exploration within official governmental circles. NASA receives a tiny
share of the federal tax revenues, yet space activities rank among the most visible of
American achievements. The NASA Administrator heads a small, independent agency
that does not entitle its leader to sit as a member of the president’s cabinet, yet space
accidents precipitate periods of deep national introspection.
Space entertains. Stories fictional and true dealing with space exploration are
among the most widely consumed in American culture. They exalt explorers who
investigate new worlds, honor scientists who attack the mysteries of the universe, and
humor machines that follow the intentions of their creators. In an era of television and
mass communication, the capacity of ideas to excite and entertain is crucial to their
survival in the marketplace of imagination. Ideas that do not excite and entertain are
replaced by those that do. In this respect, space exploration has proved to be one of the
most remarkably persistent stories that Americans tell about themselves – a defining
characteristic of national culture. The initial vision was transmitted through works of
imagination, enthralling readers with stories of voyages to the planets and stars. Through
a deliberately organized public relations campaign, using the medium of popular science,
space enthusiasts convinced Americans that those stories could come true. When the
actual space program arrived, reporters treated it as one of the greatest news stories of all
time.5 Commentators elevated the place of space exploration by treating it as important.
By displaying the story, they communicated a central message to the general public. This
subject is important. This achievement deserves your attention.
When the line between information and entertainment becomes blurred,
difficulties inevitably arise. To make information entertaining, story tellers often bend
events to fit saleable story lines. They may simplify or alter reality. The resulting
“infotainment” can attract large audiences, but it can also fail to capture the nuances of
4
actual events. Docudramas that twist facts to create interesting tales may mislead the
public into believing that imagined events actually occurred. Stories that utilize
stereotypes and familiar narratives may weaken the public’s ability to make intelligent
decisions about real challenges and genuine events.6
This is the cycle through which the vision of space exploration seems to move. In
the beginning, the vision seems familiar, feasible, and desirable. It interlocks well with
the American experience. The truth or validity of the vision is largely irrelevant to its
undertaking, since no one knows for certain at that time how its pursuit will turn out. The
power of the vision to enlist public support is determined largely through its
compatibility with established cultural beliefs and its ability to attract a large audience.
Entertainment and the collective presumptions about space exploration found in historical
analogies guarantee a receptive audience for the undertaking. They also assured that gaps
between imagination and reality will arise. The truth often turns out to be different than
people imagine it to be.
One might think that the discomforting presence of reality intruding upon a
wonderful vision would disappoint its creators. In fact, the opposite occurs. Activities in
the modern world constructed on a fictional foundation do not spontaneously disappear
when facts intrude in discomforting ways. If the space exploration experience is a guide,
then efforts constructed on a sufficiently solid foundation of subjective understanding
will persist even in the presence of adversity.
Some fifty years into the venture, the reality of space exploration differs
considerably from anticipated events. Visionaries anticipated that winged spaceships
would provide inexpensive and relatively safe access to space; NASA’s reusable space
shuttle failed to meet those goals. Dreamers prepared plans for large, rotating space
stations that could serve as launching pads to the cosmos; the International Space Station
is a micro-gravity research laboratory with a skeleton crew. Scientists hoped to find
plants or primitive life forms on Mars; the first machines found a cold and sterile soil.
The vision of space exploration proved harder to achieve than its promoters imagined; its
pursuit led to discoveries that few people anticipated. Few engineers, fifty years ago,
anticipated the staggering cost and technical difficulties of building orbital space stations
and flying reusable spacecraft. Few scientists foresaw the astonishing differences
between the Earth, Venus, and Mars. Practically no one anticipated the capabilities that
space robots would achieve after a half century of innovation. To paraphrase J. B. S.
Haldane, space exploration not only turned out to be stranger than we imagined, it
sometimes turned out to be stranger than we could imagine.7
Yet this has not deterred advocates of exploration. Not in space. Humans possess
an impressive capacity for reshaping their lives and an astonishing capability for
imagining how it might occur. Confronted by unforeseen difficulties, humans are prone
to increase their efforts. Rather than abandon their beliefs, visionaries modify them.8 If
nature imposes cosmic speed limits on the velocity of propelled devices, then humans
envision shortcuts through space and time. Perhaps wormholes will do. If Mars proves
too cold and airless for human habitation, then humans envision methods for changing
the local atmosphere. The process is called terraforming and is achieved by pumping
greenhouse gases into the air.9 Humans believe they have altered the atmosphere of their
own planet, so why not achieve the same results on a nearby sphere.
5
Reconsideration and abandonment of efforts require an opposing sense of reality
and a countervailing vision around which the opposition can rally. Alternatives to the
dominant narrative of space exploration in America have been ill-formed and their
advocates poorly organized. In the absence of a persuasive alternative, space enthusiasts
confronted with findings that do not fit the underlying vision tend to reinterpret the vision
or modify it in nondestructive ways. The faithful do abandon their beliefs just because
their prophesies fail. Rather than acknowledge defeat, they work harder to make the
original vision come true and recommit themselves to their original aspirations. In such
ways, they move toward their vision. If new worlds do not fit old dreams, it is the worlds
that tend to change, not the dreams.
This is a fascinating process. Its retelling through the subject of space exploration
demonstrates the power of human beings to reshape not only their subjective
interpretations of reality, but also the objective worlds on which they live.
6
INTRODUCTION: IMAGINING SPACE
Epigraph: Michael Crichton, Sphere (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), 348.
1
See, for example, John M. Logsdon, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo
and The National Interest (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970); Walter A. McDougall,
The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age (New York: Basic
Books, 1985).
2
See, for example, Lewis Thomas, The Fragile Species (New York: Scribner’s, 1992);
Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2001); Joseph J. Corn, The Winged Gospel: America’s Romance with
Aviation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, c. 1983); Benedict Anderson,
Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London:
Verso Editions, 1983).
3
Arthur C. Clarke, “Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination,” in Clarke,
Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry Into the Limits Of the Possible (New York: Harper &
Row, 1962).
4
See the works of Steven J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: the Origins of the Extraterrestrial
Life Debate from Domocritus to Kant (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982);
The Biological Universe: The Twentieth-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate and the
Limits of Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996) or Life on Other
Worlds: The 20th-Century Extraterrestrial Life Debate (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1998).
5
Frederick I. Ordway and Randy Liebermann, Blueprint for Space: Science Fiction to
Science Fact (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992).
6
See W. Lance Bennett, News: The Politics of Illusion, 7th ed. (New York: Longman,
2006); James Fallows, Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American
Democracy (New York: Pantheon Books, 1996).
7
“Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we support, but queerer
than we can suppose.” J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds and Other Papers (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1927), 298.
8
See Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter, When Prophecy Fails
(Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1956).
9
See Carl Sagan, Contact: A Novel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985); Sagan, Pale
Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space (New York: Random House, 1994).
7