How the Space Race Changed America

¶ … American history that have changed the arc and path of society and culture forever. A few recent examples would include the emergence of the World Wide Web in the 1990's, social media more recently as well as the general progress made with the automobile and other modes of transportation. However, the one technological arc in the last century that has perhaps changed things more than anything else has been the so-called Space Race.

Indeed, with the launching of the Russian Sputnik, President Eisenhower enacted the Space Race and this would forever change the landscapes of education, politics and economics for the United States for many decades. When Russia rendered its major accomplishment that was Sputnik, they certainly reveled and celebrated the fact that they had beat Western countries like the United States and Britain to space. One account of the aftermath of Sputnik's success came from a British perspective.

It is noted that the reaction included "an initial outpouring of surprise combined with celebration of humankind's achievement." However, it was noted that there was also "a sense of loss of national prestige, due to Britain's lack of an equivalent space program and the decline of her empire." It was revealed in future months and years that it impacted the "British society and understanding of national identity in the 1950's with imperial superiority, religion and perceived decline being recurring themes." Similar thought patterns and feelings emerged in the United States over the same time period [footnoteRef:1].

[1: Barnett, Nicholas. 2013. "RUSSIA WINS SPACE RACE'." Media History 19, no. 2: 182-195. Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] Of course, the man who spearheaded the American response was then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Noted professor Yanek Mieczkowski asserted that the launching of the Sputnik satellite was a "defining episode" in the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Further, he asserted that it spurred the United States to strive for a "come from behind victory" against the Russians and their space program.

One has to know the momentum of the United States in the 1950's to truly realize what a blow Sputnik was to the American ego and consciousness. Indeed, the 1950's was a time where economic and technological development was progressing at a great clip and it thus promised a bright future for all Americans. There were indeed social and cultural problems during that same time frame and those cannot be ignored.

However, the reaction to Sputnik and what happened after Sputnik was successfully launch was something that truly change the course of American and human history on this planet and beyond. By modern standards, Sputnik was not that much of an accomplishment nor was it all that impressive. Indeed, it was an "insignificant little metal ball" that measured about sixty centimeters in diameter.

It circled the world a mere six hundred kilometers above the earth and it only stayed in its orbit for about seventy days before it fell back into Earth's atmosphere and burned up during its descent. Even with those meager facts, the future impacts that little metal ball has had are beyond measure in many ways [footnoteRef:2]. [2: Doughty, Howard A. 2013. "Eisenhower's Sputnik Moment: The Race for Space and World Prestige." College Quarterly 16, no. 3: 1.

Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] In the immediate aftermath of Sputnik, it became clear that this was the "moment" where Eisenhower was faced with a test. Basically, the U.S.S.R. had shown up the United States and had shown itself superior in a major way. However, it was also the starting point from which Eisenhower would eventually be able to create a lasting legacy. In public, Eisenhower was seemingly nonchalant and "unruffled" about what had happened with Sputnik.

However, he was indeed keenly aware of the impact of the U.S.S.R. reaching space before the West and the United States in particular. As a direct reaction to the Sputnik success, Eisenhower formed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration along with a host of other agencies. The root goal and mission behind this reaction was to put the United States "back in the lead" when it came to dominating the land, sea air.

This pertained, at the time, primarily to military might but there would be obvious different implications as time wore on. While the Sputnik endeavor did have some significance, it was not nearly as earth-shattering and game-changing as it seemed to many in the media and the public. However, it was certainly the start of something major for the U.S.S.R. And world and Eisenhower was acutely aware of this [footnoteRef:3]. [3: Doughty, Howard A. 2013. "Eisenhower's Sputnik Moment: The Race for Space and World Prestige." College Quarterly 16, no. 3: 1.

Education Research Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] While Eisenhower was rather definitive about the Space Race, the input and reaction from President Kennedy was a little more mixed. Indeed, there was an apparent appearance of "contradictory" goals when it came to the Space Race and what it was meant to accomplished according to the Kennedy administration. While such contradictions in the public sector are usually attributed to bureaucracy-related morass, some argue that it was a clear reversal and change in course on the part of Kennedy himself.

In retrospect, it would seem that the eventual decision by Kennedy to initiate the Space Race was obviously a bit different than what Eisenhower had planned. Indeed, rather than centering on military might and power, Kennedy demanded that the United States needed to achieve a "major space milestone" before the Soviet Union. He further argued that this needed to occur regardless of how much it cost and how much effort had to be expended.

One implicit reason why this might have the case is that many political and sociological scholars were starting to mutter in hushed tones that perhaps the governmental structure of the U.S.S.R. was superior to that of the capitalism of the United States and other countries. As for Kennedy himself, he openly distrusted the overall intentions of the U.S.S.R. And why they were pursing entry and/or a presence in space. Presumably, Kennedy was under the impression that the U.S.S.R.

held the same view as Eisenhower in that it was about domination and military might even if the press coverage and basking in glory was a nice side effect of beating the United States into space. Kennedy was true to his word on the "any cost" part of his spiel about how many resources to dedicate to the space program. As an example, on September 20th, 1963 he insisted that $7 billion USD be dedicated to the Apollo program.

However, Kennedy's stated motives for all of these actions were indeed actively contradicting each other. At one point, he stated that the Apollo project was a "battle between freedom and tyranny," an apparent reference to the relationship between the United States and the U.S.S.R.

However, at a different point he said that it was a matter of competition between nations and that space "offers no problems of sovereignty." For its part, Congress seemed to side with the national security concern and passed a resolution prohibiting any sort of joint mission with other countries. Initially, the language singled out Communist countries but was later clarified to include any other country [footnoteRef:4]. [4: Kay, W.D. 2003. "Problem Definitions and Policy Contradictions: John F. Kennedy and the "Space Race." Policy Studies Journal 31, no. 1: 53.

Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] The duality of political motives just mentioned above continued into the 1970's and 1980's with great fervor. NASA was and remained in a political tug-of-war between two major interests. One group asserted and demanded that NASA was about space exploration and scientific advancement while other people in the government sought out military and financial exploitation of space in a way that furthered United States interests and that kept the United States as one of (if not the most) powerful country in the world.

This dichotomy of interests led to the obvious conclusion that the Space Shuttle mission scope and goals were absolutely influenced by politics. Indeed, there was the tumult of the development phase that occurred from 1972 to 1982. After that came the Challenger disaster in 1986. Of course, the development phase just mentioned was started by President Nixon. However, Nixon himself was reported to be less than excieted and engaged in NASA. One reason for that seemed to be that it was ostensibly a "Kennedy project" and thus it made Nixon less enthused.

Even so, the start of the Space Shuttle program would obviously affect NASA and the United States space program for the next three decades in a very direct fashion. Many contend that Nixon greenlit the NASA spending that created the Space Shuttle program as part of a larger government spending initiative to stimulate the economy and keep unemployment low during reelection season.

Indeed, that strategy seemed to work well for him and this would be a sterling example of how economics (in conjunction with politics) had an influence on how much was dedicated to NASA and the space program and why [footnoteRef:5]. [5: Woods, Brian. 2009. "A political history of NASA's space shuttle: the development years, 1972-1982." Sociological Review 57, 25-46. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] This would bring the timeline to the modern day.

One should now look back over the last half century and see just how much has changed and just how much is still affected to this very day by what Eisenhower started in the 1950's. One realm that is still affected to this day is education. In more recent years, there has been a severe ramping up of using private sector enterprises to complete space missions.

This has become a major necessity in light of the fact that the Space Shuttle program has been retired (in 2011) and there are no more planned missions to space that involve only NASA. Indeed, NASA has been replaced in terms of space launch vehicles by two other entities, those being the Russians and American private enterprise. Given the presence of the International Space Station in orbit over Earth, one of the two must emerge as the clear option.

Since even post-USSR Russia has a quite tense relationship with the United States, there has been a push to get the private space enterprise companies going in the United States. Two of the major companies that have been part of this movement are Orbital Sciences Corporation and Space-X. This privatized space movement has had effects on many spheres of modern life with perhaps one of the major ones being the educational sphere. Indeed, there has been a focused on what is known as STEM.

STEM is short for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Indeed, the United States has very much fallen behind other countries when it comes to education in those disciplines. That fact combined with the current commercialization of space travel (not to mention a desire to not need to rely on the Russians) has very much created a second Space Race. When it comes to education, this movement has centered on a reform of educational tactics and methods when it comes to the STEM subjects.

Indeed, such a reform and movement would be a repeat of the first iteration of the Space Race in the 1950's and 1960's. TO be specific, the first Space Race was deemed to have been "seminal and vital to current reform in STEM education." One historical example of educational reform during the first Space Race was the National Defense of Education Act in 1958. That overall movement paid huge dividends when Apollo 11 became the first space vehicle to land on the Moon.

Of course, moon travel and a lot of "Space Race" spending and resources have since dissipated. While private enterprise is seeking to fill the void left by the government effectively exiting the space travel sphere (at least in terms of providing the transportation), that is where the private sector comes in. However, a rededication to the STEM education subjects is seen as necessary so that these current and future private space companies are staffed with the best and the brightest students that can be produced.

Even though NASA itself is sort of divesting itself from space vehicles and the associated spending, they have always been very involved with educational endeavors. One example is the Engineering byDesign curricula and their Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP). The goals of the current education reforms are to build the proper teams and infrastructure to supply the International Space Station without Russian assistance (or anyone else, for that matter) and to eventually go to Mars.

Another idea that has been floated is to capture an asteroid so that it can be studied. Much like the first Space Race, the technology and advances have been moving quite quickly. Indeed, Space-X was launched a scant thirteen years ago in 2002 and has already launched a number of successful space missions. However, they have also had a few failures [footnoteRef:6]. [6: GRUBBS, MICHAEL. 2014. "space race two: continuation of STEM education and commercialization of space." Technology & Engineering Teacher 74, no. 2: 24-29.

Professional Development Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] As noted several times already throughout this report, there have been many effects on economics and politics that have involved NASA to some degree. Also mentioned was the need for a second Space Race due to changes in the priorities and structure of NASA. While the Space Shuttle being mothballed is one example of these changing priorities, there are other effects and results that are occurring concurrently to that.

One such thing, as summarized in a 2012 journal article, is the shift away from planetary science as a focus of NASA. Of course, it has been a major focus in the past. With the arrival of the craft Messenger in the orbit around Mercury, NASA has now had spacecraft around Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and, of course, the Earth's moon. There are two other crafts in transit to Jupiter and Pluto. Both of those are slated to reach their destinations in 2015.

There is also a craft on the way to the dwarf planet known as Ceres. As noted by many, "humankind's presence has never stretched so far." Many marvel at what could still be to come. Many assert that robots could be "spying down on bizarre moons that might harbor alien life." However, a lot of those dreams are being shut down due to discussions that are political and economic in nature.

People that claim this point to the fact that President Obama's 2013 budget called for a twenty percent cut in planetary science funding. This could effectively prevent such future missions from being started, let alone completed. A prior mission to do a launch in 2016 or 2018 to Mars was scrapped due to even harsher cuts. To be fair, the cuts in 2012 and 2013 are just a few years removed from the Great Recession that ran from 2007 to 2009.

However, many people view the shift away from planetary science and exploration as a grave mistake that the United States will eventually come to regret. It would seem that the drive and ambition that was created when the U.S.S.R. beat the United States to the proverbial punch with Sputnik is starting to falter a bit…if not a lot [footnoteRef:7]. [7: Scientific American. 2012. "To the moons, NASA: Planetary science is NASA's most successful and inspirational program. It should not be gutted." Scientific American 307, no. 1: 14.

MEDLINE, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] Other analysis that was secondary in nature seems to reveal much the same thing. Indeed, there is a common theory that NASA faces a dilemma over manned missions now that the Space Shuttle is no longer in use.

Not already stated in this report is a fairly obvious statement that needs to be emphasize and that is "when NASA retired its Space Shuttle fleet this July, it effectively withdrew its capability to launch astronauts into space." What is quite perplexing about this entire happenstance, inclusive of having to rely on the Russians, is that this was known to be coming but little to anything consequential was done about it, at least by NASA.

The saving grace thus far has been that the prior-mentioned private space companies have been assisted greatly with government funding. However, it should be noted that while supply missions have been a possibility for a while, manned missions would have to come via help from the Russian Soyuz program until at least 2015 or 2016 at the earliest.

In the meantime from the 2011 shut-down of the Space Shuttle and the 2015/2016 (or later) ability to resume American-issued manned flights to the International Space Station, the actual question arose as to whether the United States should strive to return to its former position of being self-sufficient when it comes to space travel or if they should just throw in the towel and cut ties with manned space travel altogether.

However, returning to prominence (which has been the osentible decision made since then) required partnering with the aforementioned Russians and precisely that was arranged in April 2010 at the cost of $335 million for six "round trip tickets." Even if the face-saving question in terms of American pride is an issue, so would the fact that the Soyuz program has had its own issues and failures just like the United States has lost two different Space Shuttles over the years.

Given that they are the only country in the world that can currently offer manned spaceflight, the lack of redundancy in place is obviously a grave concern. As such, the United States has to make an immediate and decisive choice regarding how they are going to address that. Some argue that the Space Shuttle was shut down prematurely but others assert that a new method needs to emerge and it will apparently come from the private sector but with great assistance from American taxpayer dollars and other governmental influence [footnoteRef:8].

[8: Williamson, M. 2011. "News analysis: NASA faces dilemma over manned missions in post-Shuttle era." Engineering & Technology (17509637) 6, no. 11: 20-21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed July 3, 2015).] Just as the message of Kennedy regarding the priorities and directions of the space program were a little muddled, much the same thing has apparently been occurring with the current Obama administration. Indeed, Obama was elected in 2008 (although did take office until January 2009) and 2008 happened to be the fiftieth anniversary of the agency.

The purported goal at the time (in 2008) was to get a man back on the moon. However, there has also been the prior talk about Mars. As of 2010, Obama was less than clear about what NASA could or should be doing (although the prior-mentioned source from 2012 apparently answered that question) but there is one factor that everyone should probably consider.

That factor would be that the goals and endeavors of NASA have more in common with the like of Christopher Columbus and Magellan than the missions or requirements of other federal agencies. Indeed, most agencies are not explorers that are venturing into the great unknown and there are very specific purposes and needs that are being met and taken care of. When it comes to NASA, the scope, depth and breadth of their goals and what they strive for is entirely different paradigm.

This creates the question of why money should be spent on NASA when we are in a "time of intense domestic economic and foreign policy challenges." However, perhaps the better question to ask is where we would be today if NASA never came to be in the first place. This question has so many layers including the educational, economic, military and political changes that happened as NASA came to be and accomplished what it did [footnoteRef:9]. [9: Lambright, W. Henry. 2010. "Exploring Space: NASA at 50 and Beyond." Public.