MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801455833 · doi:10.1353/tech.2018.0020

Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick

2018· article· en· W2801455833 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jordan Bimm

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpaceflightAgency (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Societal impact of nanotechnologyValue (mathematics)ConversationPolitical scienceSociologyMedia studiesEngineeringSocial scienceComputer scienceAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight ed. by Steven J. Dick Jordan Bimm (bio) Historical Studies in the Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Edited by Steven J. Dick. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2015. Pp. ix+664. $59.99. This third volume in NASA History’s Societal Impact series, a series that emerged from a 2006 conference and the subsequent publication Societal Impact of Spaceflight (2007), focuses mostly on the Agency’s impact on technologies beyond the usual rockets, planes, and space capsules. This brings space history out of its niche and into conversation with the histories of atomic batteries, integrated circuits, medical devices, miniature accelerometers, and communications technologies. However, despite editor Steven J. Dick’s hope in his brief introduction that these studies will address “the mutual interaction of space exploration and society” (p. vii), many remain focused on scientists, engineers, and machines, leaving one wondering when “society” will show up. Historians of technology may also be unsatisfied with the impact model, a limitation flagged at the initial conference by Glen Asner, who noted that “the concept of societal impact is problematic” and called for assessments of “the influence of society on spaceflight.”* The tome’s nine chapters are organized into three sections: “Opinion,” “Spinoff?” and “The World At Large.” “Opinion” contains just one chapter, sociologist William Sims Bainbridge’s analysis of polls tracking Americans’ evolving attitudes about the prospects and inherent value of space-flight from the late 1940s to the near present. Bainbridge also leads off “Spinoff”—the volume’s most valuable and cohesive section—busting the myth that space exploration greatly benefits society through the transfer of technologies to the public for non-aerospace uses. Through an examination of a handful of obscure medical technologies (a bone density analyzer, anti-shock garments, memory foam, and a braille reader) promoted in the Agency’s annual Spinoff report, Bainbridge finds that nearly every case fails to meet a strict definition of the term, with NASA acting not as sole origin of groundbreaking tech, but as one of many interrelated supportive conduits in the military-academic-industrial-complex that innovations of varying significance pass through. In the next two chapters, Andrew Butrica tackles additional cases of [End Page 183] purported NASA spinoff: the famed integrated circuit, which he argues has become something of an “urban legend” thanks to their use in the Apollo guidance and navigation computer, and the lesser-known case of micro-electromechanical systems (MEMs), tiny accelerometers now ubiquitous in smartphones. Both chapters border on book-length (100 and 71 pages, respectively), and despite an accidentally repeated quote (p. 184), they reveal the complexity of engineering and funding networks inside and outside NASA that the tidy concept of spinoff obfuscates. Butrica concludes that isolating NASA’s contributions here is difficult, as critical data has been lost or merged with other “defense” entities like the Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense, and Atomic Energy Commission. He laments that determining the extent to which NASA’s sizable purchases of integrated circuits and internal work on their reliability really drove their massive proliferation is like “trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” (p. 244) In Chapter 5, Roger Launius offers a history of the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), the controversial nuclear power source NASA has used in many high-profile robotic spacecraft like Mars Pathfinder, Cassini, and the Voyager probes. Launius finally brings in “society,” explaining how atomic batteries debuted in space in 1961 but only became a touchstone for anti-nuclear and environmental protests in the late 1970s, following the uncontrolled reentry of the Soviet Kosmos 954 satellite, which scattered radioactive debris across northern Canada, and the Three Mile Island accident. Continuing the theme of planetary stewardship, W. Henry Lambright’s more general survey of space and environmentalism has only increased in importance since publication. He shows how NASA’s Earth Science program—now facing elimination by the Trump administration for conducting climate research—stemmed from astronaut Sally Ride’s 1987 recommendation for a “Mission to Planet Earth” (MTPE). The final three chapters include David J. Walen’s round-up of various types of commercial applications satellites (he argues communications satellites have the...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and CultureSame topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207