Sharing the Shuttle with America: NASA and Public Engagement after Apollo Amy Paige Kaminski Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science and Technology in Society Sonja D. Schmid, Chair Barbara L. Allen Gary L. Downey Richard F. Hirsh Roger D. Launius March 6, 2015 Falls Church, Virginia Keywords: NASA, Space Shuttle, human space flight, public engagement, sociotechnical imaginaries, democratization, public participation Copyright 2015, Amy Paige Kaminski Sharing the Shuttle with America: NASA and Public Engagement after Apollo Amy Paige Kaminski Abstract Historical accounts depict NASA’s interactions with American citizens beyond government agencies and aerospace firms since the 1950s and 1960s as efforts to “sell” its human space flight initiatives and to position external publics as would-be observers, consumers, and supporters of such activities. Characterizing citizens solely as celebrants of NASA’s successes, however, masks the myriad publics, engagement modes, and influences that comprised NASA’s efforts to forge connections between human space flight and citizens after Apollo 11 culminated. While corroborating the premise that NASA constantly seeks public and political approval for its costly human space programs, I argue that maintaining legitimacy in light of shifting social attitudes, political priorities, and divided interest in space flight required NASA to reconsider how to serve and engage external publics vis-à-vis its next major human space program, the Space Shuttle. Adopting a sociotechnical imaginary featuring the Shuttle as a versatile technology that promised something for everyone, NASA sought to engage citizens with the Shuttle in ways appealing to their varied, expressed interests and became dependent on some publics’ direct involvement to render the vehicle viable economically, socially, and politically. NASA’s ability and willingness to democratize the Shuttle proved difficult to sustain, however, as concerns evolved following the Challenger accident among NASA personnel, political officials, and external publics about the Shuttle’s purpose, value, safety, and propriety. Mapping the publics and engagement modes NASA regarded as crucial to the Shuttle’s legitimacy, this case study exposes the visions of public accountability and other influences – including changing perceptions of a technology – that can govern how technoscientific institutions perceive and engage various external publics. Doing so illuminates the prospects and challenges associated with democratizing decisions and uses for space and, perhaps, other technologies managed by U.S. government agencies while suggesting a new pathway for scholarly inquiry regarding interactions between technoscientific institutions and external publics. Expanding NASA’s historical narrative, this study demonstrates that entities not typically recognized as space program contributors played significant roles in shaping the Shuttle program, substantively and culturally. Conceptualizing and valuing external publics in these ways may prove key for NASA to sustain human space flight going forward. iii Dedication To Steve and Maya To Mom and Dad To Grandma and Grandpa B. and to Grandma and Grandpa S. To Mrs. P. iv Acknowledgements This study is personally meaningful to me. I grew up with the dream of becoming a Space Shuttle astronaut. During my undergraduate years, however, I realized that my real passion entailed exploring not space per se but considering the social, political and cultural imperatives and possibilities for human ambitions to probe and navigate the cosmos. Why is it that certain nations choose to invest in sending human or robotic emissaries into space? What determines the destinations they decide to visit? Will private companies and individuals ever eclipse governments as leaders in using and exploring space? Although I abandoned my aspiration to fly to the stars, my commitment to making sense of this bold human endeavor has not ebbed. This study therefore signifies for me the melding of personal dreams past and present. Like the pursuit of all dreams, a dissertation is as much a process as it is a product. Although its shelf life will far exceed the months and years spent creating it, a tremendous quantity of mental and physical energy and non-trivial amounts of elation, frustration, triumph, and sacrifice punctuate the experience. Fortunately, in my case, numerous caring and knowledgeable individuals eased my journey in the completion of this work and are the foundation from which this work could come to fruition. I am indebted to and forever grateful to all of those who supported me, whether by helping me work through intellectual complexities, holding out a light as I navigated the depths of various archives and research materials, providing gifts of time or financial resources, celebrating with me the achievement of milestones along the way, or commiserating when the going got tough. My most heartfelt thanks goes to my family. My husband Steve and our daughter Maya tolerated and encouraged me throughout five years of Ph.D. coursework and dissertation writing. Steve generously allowed me the time and space I needed for my studies and research, bearing a considerable share of the effort in taking care of and entertaining Maya. Maya, meanwhile, grew during that time span from a three-year-old preschooler to a zestful third-grader who became my greatest motivation to complete the v journey. I also cannot express enough my appreciation for the support I’ve received from my parents, James and Cheryl. I am grateful, too, for the love, interest, and encouragement I received from my sisters Stacey and Randi and their families, Steve’s parents and siblings, as well as my large extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins. My grandparents, including my two grandfathers who are no longer living, provided a constant source of inspiration for me to reach my goal. Many individuals provided guidance and served as thoughtful and thought-provoking sounding boards throughout the dissertation development process. I extend infinite thanks to my dissertation committee chair Sonja Schmid, who patiently and selflessly committed untold numbers of hours for discussions and reviews concerning this project as she navigated the Virginia Tech Ph.D. advising process for the first time. My Virginia Tech committee members, Barbara Allen, Gary Downey, and Richard Hirsh indulged me in several stimulating conversations and provided helpful comments on drafts of this work. Committee member Roger Launius of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum contributed many constructive insights as a subject matter expert. My long-time mentor and friend Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell University graciously served as an unofficial advisor, reviewing my dissertation and indulging me in invaluable discussions about my research on multiple occasions. Daniel Breslau, Michael Dennis, and David Onkst also generously gave of their time to review my dissertation proposal and provide feedback. Saul Halfon, Matthew Wisnioski, David Tomblin, David Nye, Janet Vertesi, Matthew Hersch, and the “Albatrosses” of the Society for the History of Technology also helped me formulate ideas early on for this work. Virginia Tech classmates including Sterling Mullis, David Winyard, Kelley Boyer, Jen Henderson, Mel Eulau, Phil Egert, Stephanie Mawler, Lee Ann Mawler, and Claire Cuccio were wonderful sources of ideas and encouragement as well. I will not soon forget the lunch dates during which Shali Mohleji, Linda Billings, and Ellen McCallie – all of whom were in my shoes in the not-terribly-distant-past – took the time to talk through my research ideas with me. Still others made it possible for me to conduct the research that fed into this work. At the NASA History Office at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., Jane Odom, Liz Suckow, Colin Fries, John Hargenrader, and Bill Barry facilitated access to the NASA Historical Reference Collection’s rich trove vi of primary source documents. I deeply appreciate the staff’s assistance and patience in accommodating me while simultaneously taking on the herculean task of packing up the entire archive in preparation for a renovation. At NASA Johnson Space Center’s history office at the University of Houston-Clear Lake, archivists Regina (Jean) Grant and Lauren Meyers graciously supported my two-day, whirlwind visit to the facility in June 2013. The NASA Headquarters Library team, including Rich Spencer, Lee Shapiro, and the late Craig Levin, provided helpful reading suggestions and good cheer on my numerous trips to collect background materials. At Virginia Tech, librarians Bruce Pencek and Debbie Cash deftly aided me in navigating the university’s library system and databases to find valuable source information. I also extend a great deal of thanks to all of the individuals I interviewed for taking the time to share with me insights about NASA that simply do not exist in published works. It was a privilege to engage with them all and was especially poignant to speak with Pennsylvania Teacher-in-Space finalist Pat Palazzolo, who was my own teacher and mentor several decades ago. Interviewees Beth Beck, Jim Hull, Jonathan Krezel, Alan Ladwig, and June Malone at NASA as well as Marcia Smith also pointed me to documents that proved useful in my research. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Doug Peterson, who