We can learn most about how science funding works when it stops working. Like moments of breakdown surfacing the inner workings of infrastructure, periodic fiscal crises reveal the social life of science funds at the level of everyday practice. Through a case study of NASA-funded planetary science in an era of austerity, the article explores how scientists navigate uncertain funding environments and articulate financially defensible projects. Examining the development of the Mariner 10 mission to Venus and Mercury in the aftermath of a significant downturn in science support, the article offers a middle path between the macro-politics of government funding and the micro-politics of doing science. In shaping how the mission was conceived and later operated, Mariner 10’s cost-driven paradigm translated the austerity of the period into the projectized work of robotic spaceflight missions.
ArmstrongTKrimigisSLanzerottiL (1975) A reinterpretation of the reported energetic particle fluxes in the vicinity of Mercury. Journal of Geophysical Research80(28): 4015–4017.
2.
AlbertsBKirschnerMTilghmanS, et al. (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(16): 5773–5777.
3.
AndersenCBek-ThomsenKKjaergaardP (2012) The money trail: A new historiography for networks, patronage, and scientific careers. Isis103(2): 310–315.
4.
AzoulayPZivinJMansoG (2011) Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. The Rand Journal of Economics42(3): 527–554.
5.
BakerDDeweyRLawrenceD, et al. (2016) Intense energetic electron flux enhancements in Mercury’s magnetosphere: An integrated view with high-resolution observations from MESSENGER. Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics121(3): 2171–2184.
6.
BiagioliM (1990) Galileo’s system of patronage. History of Science28(1): 1–62.
7.
BiggsJDownhowerW (1974) Mariner Venus/Mercury ‘73: A strategy of cost control. Astronautics and Aeronautics12: 48–53.
8.
CarterL (1967) Space budget: Congress is in a critical, cutting mood. Science157(3785): 170–173.
9.
CarterL (1969) Post-apollo: NASA seeks a Mars flight plan. Science165(3897): 987–991.
10.
ChelsonP (1971) Technical Report 32-1554: Failure-Rate Computations Based on Mariner Mars 1969 Spacecraft Data. Pasadena: Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
11.
CloudJ (2001) Imagining the world in a barrel: CORONA and the clandestine convergence of the Earth sciences. Social Studies of Science31(2): 231–251.
12.
CohnM (2016) Convivial decay: Entangled lifetimes in a geriatric infrastructure. Proceedings of CSCW (Computer-Supported Cooperative Work)16: 1511–1523.
13.
ColomboGShapiroI (1966) The rotation of the planet Mercury. Astrophysical Journal145: 296–307.
14.
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences (1969) Senate Report No. 282: Authorizing Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington: GPO (Government Publishing Office).
15.
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences (1974) Hearings on a Bill to Authorize Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington: GPO (Government Publishing Office).
16.
Committee on Science and Astronautics (1969) House Report No. 91-255: Authorizing Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Washington: GPO (Government Publishing Office).
17.
ConwayE (2015) Exploration and Engineering: The Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Quest for Mars. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
ConwayE (2016) Space and planetary sciences. In: MontgomeryGLargentM (eds) A Companion to the History of American Science. Malden: John Wiley and Sons, 276–288.
19.
CuttingE (1973) Early history leading to the MVM’73 mission. JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Interoffice Memorandum 73–10.
20.
De VorkinD (1992) Science With a Vengeance: How the Military Created the US Space Sciences After World War II. New York: Springer-Verlag.
21.
DoelR (1996) Solar System Astronomy in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
DuBridgeL (1969) Testimony in NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1970: Hearings before the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Washington: GPO (Government Publishing Office).
23.
DunneJBurgessE (1978) The Voyage of Mariner 10 Mission to Venus and Mercury. Washington: NASA.
ErakerJSimpsonJ (1986) Acelleration of charged particles in Mercury’s magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics91(A9): 9973–9993.
26.
EzellEEzellL (1984) On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958-1978. Washington: NASA.
27.
FimmelRColinLBurgessE (1995) Pioneering Venus: A Planet Unveiled. Washington: NASA.
28.
FranssenTScholtenWHesselsL, et al. (2018) The Drawbacks of project funding for epistemic innovation: Comparing institutional affordances and constraints of different types of research funding. Minerva56(1): 11–33.
29.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
30.
GibersonWCunninghamN (1975) Mariner 10 mission to Venus and Mercury. Acta Astronautica2(7-8): 715–743.
31.
GlaserJLaudelG (2016) Governing science how science policy shapes research content. European Journal of Sociology57(1): 117–168.
32.
GustonD (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity of Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
HallR (1977) Lunar Impact: The NASA History of Project Ranger. Washington: NASA.
34.
HeinzeT (2008) How to sponsor ground-breaking research: A comparison of funding schemes. Science and Public Policy35(5): 302–318.
35.
HeppenheimerT (1999) The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle. Washington: NASA.
36.
HunterM (1967) Unmanned scientific exploration throughout the solar system. Space Science Reviews6(5): 601–654.
37.
JacksonSPompeAKrieshokG (2012) Repair worlds: Maintenance, repair, and ICT for development in rural Namibia. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work107–116.
38.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1976) Technical Memorandum 33-734 Mariner Venus-Mercury 1973 Project Final Report: Venus and Mercury 1 Encounters. Pasadena: California Institute of Technology.
KleinmanD (2003) Impure Cultures; University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
41.
KohlerR (1990) Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900-1945. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
KraemerR (2000) Beyond the Moon: The Golden Age of Planetary Exploration, 1971-1978. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
43.
LaudelG (2006) The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy33(7): 489–504.
44.
LauniusR (2000) Foreword. In: KraemerR (ed) Beyond the Moon: The Golden Age of Planetary Exploration, 1971-1978. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, ix–xxix.
45.
LightJ (2003) From Warfare to Welfare: Defense Intellectuals and Urban Problems in Cold War America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
LogsdonJ (2013) The survival crisis of the US solar system exploration program in the 1980s. In: LauniusR (ed) Exploring the Solar System: The History and Science of Planetary Exploration. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 45–76.
47.
LogsdonJ (2015) After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
48.
MargócsyD (2017) A long history of breakdowns: A historiographical review. Social Studies of Science47(3): 307–325.
49.
McCrayW (2004) Giant Telescopes: Astronomical Ambitions and the Promise of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50.
McCurdyH (2001) Faster Better Cheaper: Low-Cost Innovation in the US Space Program. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
51.
MesseriLVertesiJ (2015) The greatest missions never flown: Anticipatory discourse and the “projectory” in technological communities. Technology and Culture56(1): 54–85.
52.
MukerjiC (1989) A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
53.
MurrayB (1975) The mariner 10 pictures of Mercury: An overview. Journal of Geophysical Research80(17): 2342–2344.
54.
MurrayB (1989) Journey into Space: The First Three Decades of Space Exploration. New York: W.W. (William Warder) Norton and Co.
55.
MurrayBBurgessE (1977) Flight to Mercury. New York: Columbia University Press.
56.
NASA (1961) Estimates of Appropriations Fiscal Year 1961, Volume II Research and Development. Washington: NASA.
57.
NASA (1967) Planetary program extension: FY 1968-1969 program issues and options. In: LogsdonJ (ed.) Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the US Civil Space Program, Volume V. Washington: NASA, 407–409.
58.
NASA (1968) Budget Estimates Fiscal Year 1968, Volume II Research and Development. Washington: NASA.
59.
NASA (1980) Interplanetary Monitoring Platform: Engineering History and Achievements. Washington: NASA.
NaugleJ (1969) Testimony in NASA Authorization for Fiscal Year 1970: Hearings before the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Washington: GPO (Government Publishing Office).
62.
NeedellA (1987) Preparing for the space age: University-based research, 1946-1957. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences18(1): 89–109.
63.
NewellH (1980) Beyond the Atmosphere: Early Years of Space Science. Washington: NASA.
64.
NicksO (1985) Far Travelers: The Exploring Machines. Washington: NASA.
ParkerE (2002) John Alexander Simpson, 1916-2000. In: Biographical Memoirs, Volume 81:319–340. Washington: National Academy Press.
67.
PaulF (1976) Technical Memorandum 33-759: A Study of Mariner 10 Flight Experiences and Some Flight Piece Part Failure Rate Computations. Pasadena: Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
68.
PettengillGDyceR (1965) A radar determination of the rotation of the planet Mercury. Nature206: 1240.
RiordanMHoddesonLKolbA (2015) Tunnel Visions: The Rise and Fall of the Superconducting Super Collider. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
71.
RosenthalA (1968) Venture Into Space: Early Years of Goddard Space Flight Center. Washington: NASA.
72.
RottnerR (2019) Working at the boundary: Making space for innovation in a NASA megaproject. Social Studies of Science49(3): 403–431.
73.
ShapinS (1989) The invisible technician. American Scientist77(8): 554–563.
74.
ShirleyD (1998) Managing Martians. Broadway Books: New York.
75.
ShirleyD (2003) The mariner 10 mission to Venus and Mercury. Acta Astronautica53(4): 375–385.
76.
SiddiqiA (2018) Beyond Earth: A Chronicle of Deep Space Exploration, 1958-2016. Washington: NASA.
77.
SimpsonJErakerJLamportJ, et al. (1974) Electrons and protons accelerated in Mercury’s magnetic field. Science185(4146): 160–166.
78.
SnyderA (2001) NASA and planetary exploration. In: LogsdonJ (ed.) Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the US Civil Space Program, vol. V. Washington: NASA, 263–300.
79.
Space Task Group (1969) The Post-Apollo Space Program: Directions for the Future. Washington: Government Printing Office.
80.
SSB (1966) Space Research: Directions for the Future. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
81.
SSB (1968) Planetary Exploration, 1968-1975: Report of a Study by the Space Science Board. Washington: National Academies Press.
82.
SSB (1970) Venus Strategy for Exploration. Washington: National Academies Press.
83.
SSB (2006) Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences. Washington: National Academies Press.
84.
StarS (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist43(3): 377–391.
85.
SturmsFCuttingE (1966) Trajectory analysis of a 1970 mission to Mercury via a close encounter with Venus. Journal of Spacecraft of Rockets3(5): 624–631.
86.
TatarewiczJ (1986) Federal funding and planetary astronomy, 1950-75: A case study. Social Studies of Science16: 79–103.
87.
WestfallC (2008) Introduction to the special issue: Surviving the squeeze: National laboratories in the 1970s and 1980. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences38(4): 475–478.
