A significant share of the U.S. federal R&D budget is devoted to large-scale, complex
technological systems commonly referred to as "big science. " Over the last two decades,
these systems have continued to grow in size, complexity, development time, and cost. At
the same time, political changes in the United States, particularly the concern over
government spending and the federal budget deficit, have made it more difficult for
proponents to secure and preserve support for these programs over their (increasingly
long) lifetimes. Using the U.S. space shuttle and space station programs as examples,
the article shows that the political requirements for obtaining approval and funding for
large and expensive research and development projects create conditions that reduce the
likelihood that they will succeed technologically. The problems of technology-based
projects like those of the U.S. space program are in fact deeply rooted in the American
political process itself.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, Christopher.1990a. Space station takes a blow. Nature344 (21March): 182.
2.
—. 1990b. U.S. space station needs another redesign. Nature344 (29March): 367.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science.1987. AAAS report XII: Research and development FY 1988. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
4.
Asker, James R.1991a. Administration rallies support for station, responds to critics. Aviation Week and Space Technology134 (25March): 68-69.
5.
—. 1991b. Engineers say high station cost would harm U.S. competitiveness . Aviation Week and Space Technology134 (1July): 20.
6.
Bachrach, Peter.1967. The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Little, Brown.
7.
Banks, Jeffrey S.1991The space shuttle. In The technology pork barrel, edited by Linda R. Cohen and Roger G. Noll, 179-216. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
8.
Broad, William J.1990a. Big science gets smaller as its promises lose luster . New York Times, 25 December: A37, 40.
9.
—. 1990b. Higher estimate for maintaining station in space. New York Times, 11 July: A1,B6
10.
—. 1990c. How the $8 billion space station became a $120 billion showpiece. New York Times, 10 June: A1,30 .
11.
Collingridge, David.1980. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin's.
12.
Covault, Craig.1990a. Hubble contractor penalties weighed for poor quality control, mirror tests. Aviation Week and Space Technology133 (3December): 74-75.
13.
—. 1990b. NASA fights image problems on hubble shuttle. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 132 (9July): 16-18.
14.
Crozier, Michael, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki.1975. The crisis of democracy. New York: New York University Press.
15.
Dahl, Robert A.1956. A preface to democratic theoryChicago : University of Chicago Press.
16.
Dickson, David.1984. The new politics of science. New York : Pantheon.
17.
Forbes, H.D.1988. Dahl, democracy, and technology. In Democratic theory and technological society, edited by Richard B. Day, Ronald Beiner, and Joseph Masciulli, 227-47. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
18.
Fries, Sylvia D.1988. 2001 to 1994: Political environment and the design of NASA's space station system. Technology and Culture29:568-93.
19.
Gavaghan, Helen.1991. Cut price space station runs out of stem. New Scientist129 (23March): 13.
20.
Gebicke, Mark E.1991/92. NASA: Choices and challenges. GAO Journal16 (Winter): 11-19.
21.
Gilmartin, Patricia A.1990. Gore faults NASA decision to forgo key Hubble test. Aviation Week and Space Technology132 (16July): 28-29.
22.
Goggin, Malcolm L.1986. Governing science and technology democratically: A conceptual framework. In Governing science and technology in a democracy , edited by Malcolm L. Goggin, 3-32. Knoxville : University of Tennessee Press.
23.
Hecht, Jeff.1991. A quick fix for hubble? New Scientist129 (16March): 30-35.
24.
Hutton, Richard.1981. The cosmic chase. New York: Mentor.
25.
Jennings, Bruce.1986. Representation and participation in the democratic governance of science and technology. In Governing science and technology in a democracy, edited by Malcolm L. Goggin , 223-43. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
26.
Johnson, Thomas H.1988. The natural history of the space shuttle. Technology in Society10:417-24.
27.
Kay, W.D.1992. Is NASA to blame for confusion in space effort? Forum in Applied Research and Public Policy7(4): 36-43.
28.
Logsdon, John M.1970. The decision to go to the moon: ProjectApollo and the national interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
—. 1984. The evolution of civilian in-space infrastructure, i.e., "space station," concepts in the United States. In Civilian space stations and the U.S. future in space, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Appendix B. Washington, DC: OTA.
30.
—. 1986. The space shuttle program: A policy failure? Science232 (30May): 1099-1105.
31.
Mark, Hans.1989. The space station. In Space: National programs and international competition, edited by Wayne C. Thompson and Steven Guerrier, 99-104. Boulder, CO: Westview.
32.
Marshall, Eliot.1989. Space station science: Up in the air. Science246 (1December): 110-12.
33.
—. 1990a. NASA grilled on space station "Flaw."Science248 (6April): 26.
34.
—. 1990b. The shuttle: Whistling past the graveyard? Science250 (26October): 499-500.
35.
—. 1991. Tilting at the space station. Science253 (19July): 256-58.
36.
McCurdy, Howard E.1990. The space station decision: Incremental politics and technological choice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
37.
—. 1991. Organizational decline: NASA and the life cycle of bureaus . Public Administration Review51:308-15.
38.
Morone, Joseph G., and Edward J. Woodhouse.1986. Averting catastrophe: Strategies for regulating high risk technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
39.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).1988. 1989 long-range program plan. Washington, DC: NASA.
40.
—. Office of the Space Station. 1988. Space station Freedom: A foothold on the future. Washington, DC: NASA.
41.
National Research Council, Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews.1983. Assessment of constraints on space shuttle launch rates. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
Orr, David W.1979. Energy policy and the political economy of participation . Journal of Politics41:1027-56.
43.
Pateman, Carole.1970. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
Pennock, J. Roland.1979. Democratic political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Perrow, Charles.1984. Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books.
46.
Price, Derek de Solla.1969. Little science, big science. New York : Columbia University Press.
47.
Roland, Alex.1987. Priorities in space for the U.S.A. Space Policy3:104-11.
48.
Schumacher, E.R.1973. Small is beautiful: Economics as ifpeople mattered. New York: Harper & Row.
49.
Smith, Robert W.1989. The space telescope: A study of NASA, science, technology, and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Thompson, Dennis F.1970. The democratic citizen: Social science and democratic theory in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
—. 1976. John Stuart Mill and representative government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
U.S. Congress. Congressional Budget Office (CBO).1985. Pricing options for the space shuttle. Washington, DC: CBO.
53.
—. 1991. Large nondefense R&D projects in the budget: 1980-1996 . Washington: CBO.
54.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Space, Science, and Technology.1989. Review of major space program studies and recommendations made to the Bush transition team. Hearings. 101st Cong., 1st sess February 8-9.
55.
—. 1990a. Proposed space station Freedom program revisions. Hearings. 101st Cong., 1st sess, October 31, 1989.
56.
—. 1990b. Station design flaws. Hearings. 101st Cong., 1st sess , March 29, 1990.
57.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Space, Science and Technology. Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.1987. NASA's implementation of NRC recommendations on space station. Hearings.
58.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).1992 . NASA: Large projects may consume increasing shares of limited future budgets. Report to Congressional Requesters. Washington, DC: GAO.
59.
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).1987. Starpower: The U.S. and the international quest for fusion energy. Washington, DC: OTA.
60.
Van Allen, James A.1986a. Myths and realities of space flight. Science232 (30May): 1075-76.
61.
—. 1986b. Space science, space technology, and the space station . Scientific American254 (January): 36.
62.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell.1989. Great telescope, bad service plan. Science242 (22December): 1551-53.
63.
—. 1990a. Hubble: The case of the single-point failure. Science259 (17August): 735-36.
64.
—. 1990b. The space station is losing friends. Science250 (19October): 364-66.
65.
Weinberg, Alvin M.1967. Reflections on big science. Cambridge : MIT Press.
66.
Willoughby, Kelvin W.1990. Technology choice: A critique of the appropriate technology movement. Boulder, CO: Westview .
67.
Zirkle, Robert A.1989. Restoring U.S. launch capacity. In Space: National programs and international cooperation, edited by Wayne C. Thompson and Steven W. Guerrier, 3-32. Boulder, CO: Westview .
